Got an X-ray and the doctor said I had cervical stenosis - however, my issue apparently is not the spinal cord region getting narrower (a horizontal constriction) but rather, that the vertebrae have compressed together (a vertical constriction.) Am I mis-reading the word “stenosis” or does it encompass all forms of nerve compression, whether horizontal or vertical?
Perhaps they mean vertical collapse is driving disks inward to compress the cord horizontally?
Compression can narrow the spaces the nerves exit from.
Stenosis narrows the whole spinal canal pressing on the nerves before they exit and the cord itself.
According to this site, you are misreading.
Cervical Stenosis - Neurosurgery.
Any compression on the spinal nerves is stenosis, whether from disc compression or arthritic buildup or other.
Not sure what you are reading but your cite reads:
“ Cervical stenosis is a condition in which the spinal canal is too small for the spinal cord and nerve roots. This can cause damage to the spinal cord, a condition called myelopathy, or pinch nerves as they exit the spinal canal (radiculopathy)”
The spinal cord is not the same as the nerve roots. Compression can eventually result in stenosis but usually compressed the nerves’ exits first (radiculopathy).
Of course the spinal cord and nerve roots aren’t the same thing. That’s why the quote you cited says “and”.
From the link:
Another page
Disk compression is a cause of stenosis.
I think there is talking past each other. Spinal stenosis is narrowing of the spinal canal. Stop there.
It may be caused by compression or other causes. It may be associated with myelopathy or radiculopathy or not.
Compression is not spinal stenosis. Compression may, fairly commonly, cause pinching the nerves (radiculopathy) as they exit the spinal canal through the exit openings - the forimina - that compression is not spinal stenosis, it is not narrowing of the spinal canal. If you wanted to call that foriminal stenosis you could but I do not believe that is a phrase in common use. Compression can be a cause of spinal stenosis; it is not itself spinal stenosis.
Make sense?
In everyday usage, I would say there is no meaningful distinction.
I’ve had two operations to repair damage in my spine, formally called Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Laminectomy.
Now the same thing is happening with the next set of vertebrae. I’ve had it called stenosis and spinal arthritis and other things I can’t remember offhand, all by doctors. What do I have? Well, my vertebrae have compressed together and I generally have constrictions in most tunnels including the spinal cord. I don’t think I could have one or the other at this point; it’s both. My experience is that doctors will call it stenosis as a general term and only get into technical language if you ask them about x-rays or other images. And probably not even then.
Oh there are very significant distinctions and different meaning even the words can be used in ways that do not communicate them.
In YOUR specific case, compressions and arthritis between the vertebrae had resulted in narrowing of the spinal canal (stenosis), which then was compressing on the nerve roots (radiculopathy) or the spinal cord itself (myelopathy). The nerves may also have been compressed exiting the forimina. You would not have the result without the cause(s), but that does not mean that the cause IS the result.
@Irishman stated that @Velocity was misreading to understand that compressions between the vertebrae was vertical squeeze while spinal stenosis was a horizontal narrowing (of the canal itself). That is simply not factual.
Sure they often go together like eggs and bacon but they are still separate items.
It is completely possible for @Velocity to have vertebral compression (vertically), with pain, without any spinal stenosis, without any narrowing of the canal. I have no idea if that is or is not the case.
What you’re saying is very plausible. When I said “everyday usage” I was not trying to answer the OP’s question formally, however, simply that none of the doctors I’ve seen have used those terms in communicating with me. Maybe they’re in the formal notes I don’t get to see, but that does me little good as a patient.