Normal Anatomy of the Lumbar Sublaminar Ridge in the Lateral Recess with Potential Implications to Surgical Technique in Degenerative Spinal Stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: This is an anatomic study using cadaveric material. OBJECTIVE: To provide anatomic descriptions of the normal lumbar sublaminar ridge in the lateral recess and its potential to impact on the exiting nerve root there, with implications to surgical technique in lumbar spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The lateral extent of the sublaminar ridge-the bony, superior insertion site of the ligamenta flava-and its topological relationship to the nerve root are not described in the literature. In the setting of degenerative lumbar stenosis this structure can hypertrophy and impinge the nerve root within the lateral recess even after excision of the corresponding ligamentum flavum. Failure to address this may contribute to failed lateral recess decompression. METHODS: Fifteen lumbar vertebrae, not obviously degenerated, were resected en bloc from three fixed adult human cadavers and then transected through the pedicles, leaving the posterior column and neural elements intact and articulated. The shape of the sublaminar ridge in the lateral recess and its relationship to the exiting nerve root were carefully examined. RESULTS: The exiting nerve root consistently crosses the sublami- nar ridge immediately inferior to the mid-pedicle, lateral to the subarticular gutter, and on the medial aspect of the true intervertebral foramen. A hypertrophic ridge can compress the exiting root by elevating the nerve root superiorly against the bony underside of the pedicle or displacing it anteriorly against the disc or vertebral body. CONCLUSION: The sublaminar ridge in the lateral recess may contribute to degenerative lumbar stenosis. Comprehensive appreciation of this anatomy may facilitate thorough lateral recess decompression.Level of Evidence: 4.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".