Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimum pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis value can be determined by individual pelvic incidence

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Adult spinal deformity (ASD) classification showing that ideal pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) value is within 10° has been received widely. But no study has focused on the optimum level of PI-LL value that reflects wide variety in PI among patients. This study was conducted to determine the optimum PI-LL value specific to an individual’s PI in postoperative ASD patients.

Methods

48 postoperative ASD patients were recruited. Spino-pelvic parameters and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were measured at the final follow-up. Factors associated with good clinical results were determined by stepwise multiple regression model using the ODI. The patients with ODI under the 75th percentile cutoff were designated into the “good” health related quality of life (HRQOL) group. In this group, the relationship between the PI-LL and PI was assessed by regression analysis.

Results

Multiple regression analysis revealed PI-LL as significant parameters associated with ODI. Thirty-six patients with an ODI <22 points (75th percentile cutoff) were categorized into a good HRQOL group, and linear regression models demonstrated the following equation: PI-LL = 0.41PI–11.12 (r = 0.45, P = 0.0059).

Conclusions

On the basis of this equation, in the patients with a PI = 50°, the PI-LL is 9°. Whereas in those with a PI = 30°, the optimum PI-LL is calculated to be as low as 1°. In those with a PI = 80°, PI-LL is estimated at 22°. Consequently, an optimum PI-LL is inconsistent in that it depends on the individual PI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schwab F, Smith VA, Biserni M, Gamez L, Farcy JP, Pagala M (2002) Adult scoliosis: a quantitative radiographic and clinical analysis. Spine 27:387–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gelb DE, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Blanke K, McEnery KW (1995) An analysis of sagittal spinal alignment in 100 asymptomatic middle and older aged volunteers. Spine 20:1351–1358

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F (2005) The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine 30:2024–2029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lafage V, Schwab F, Patel A, Hawkinson N, Farcy JP (2009) Pelvic tilt and truncal inclination: two key radiographic parameters in the setting of adults with spinal deformity. Spine 34:E599–E606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Protopsaltis T, Schwab F, Bronsard N, Smith JS, Klineberg E, Mundis G et al (2014) The T1 pelvic angle, a novel radiographic measure of global sagittal deformity, accounts for both spinal inclination and pelvic tilt and correlates with health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:1631–1640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schwab F, Farcy JP, Bridwell K, Berven S, Glassman S, Harrast J et al (2006) A clinical impact classification of scoliosis in the adult. Spine 31:2109–2114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Duval-Beaupère G, Schmidt C, Cosson P (1992) A barycentremetric study of the sagittal shape of spine and pelvis: the conditions required for an economic standing position. Ann of Biomed Eng 20:451–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Legaye J, Duval-Beaupère G, Hecquet J, Marty C (1998) Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J 7:99–103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Boulay C, Tardieu C, Hecquet J, Benaim C, Mouilleseaux B, Marty C et al (2006) Sagittal alignment of spine and pelvis regulated by pelvic incidence: standard values and prediction of lordosis. Eur Spine J 15:415–422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schwab F, Ungar B, Blondel B, Buchowski J, Coe J, Deinlein D et al (2012) Scoliosis research society-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study. Spine 37:1077–1082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rothenfluh DA, Mueller DA, Rothenfluh E, Min K (2015) Pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch predispose to adjacent segment disease after lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 24:1251–1258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cho W, Mason JR, Smith JS, Shimer AL, Wilson AS, Shaffrey CI (2013) Failure of lumbopelvic fixation after long construct fusion in patients with adult spinal deformity: clinical and radiographic risk factors. J Neurosurg Spine 19:445–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Le Huec JC, Aunoble S, Philippe L, Nicolas P (2011) Pelvic parameters: origin and significance. Eur Spine J 20:S564–S571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Noseda O, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2006) The vertical projection of the sum of the ground reactive forces of a standing patient is not the same as the C7 plumb line: a radiographic study of the sagittal alignment of the 153 asymptomatic volunteers. Spine 31:E320–E325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J, Roussouly P, Labella H (2005) Analysis of the sagittal balance of the spine and pelvis using shape and orientation parameters. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:40–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schwab F, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy JP, Lafage V (2010) Adult spinal deformity-postoperative standing imbalance: how much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine 35:2224–2231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yamada K, Abe Y, Yanagibashi Y, Hyakumachi T, Satoh S (2015) Mid- and long-term clinical outcomes of corrective fusion surgery which did not achieve sufficient pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis value for adult spinal deformity. Scoliosis 10:S17

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Horton WC, Brown CW, Bridwell KH, Glassman SD, Suk SI, Cha CW (2005) Is there an optimal patient stance for obtaining a lateral 36″ radiograph? Acritical comparison of three techniques. Spine 30:427–433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schwab F, Blondel B, Bess S, Hostin R, Shaffrey CI, Smith JS (2013) Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity. Spine 38:E803–E812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boissiere L, Bourghli A, Vital JM, Gille O, Obeid I (2013) The lumbar lordosis index: a new ratio to detect spinal malalignment with a therapeutic impact for sagittal balance correction decisions in adult scoliosis surgery. Eur Spine 22:1339–1345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lafage V, Schwab F, Vira S, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy JP (2011) Spino-pelvic parameter after surgery can be predicted. Spine 36:1037–1045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rose PS, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Cronen GA, Mulconrey DS, Buchowski JM et al (2009) Role of pelvic incidence, thoracic kyphosis, and patient factors on sagittal plane correction following pedicle subtraction osteotomy. Spine 34:785–791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Roussouly P, Pinherio-Franco JL (2011) Biomechanical analysis of the spino-pelvic organization and adaptation in pathology. Eur Spine J 20:S609–S618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Legaye J, Duval-Beauere G (2005) Sagittal plane alignment of the spine and gravity: a radiological and clinical evaluation. Acta Orthop Belg 71:213–220

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lafage V, Ames C, Schwab F, Klineberg E, Akbania B, Smith J et al (2012) Change in thoracic kyphosis negatively impact sagittal alignment after lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy. Spine 37:E180–E187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Berjano P, Langella F, Ismael M-F, Damilano M, Scopetta S, Lamertina C (2014) Successful correction of sagittal imbalance can be calculated on the basis of pelvic incidence and age. Eur Spine J 23:S587–S596

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dokkyo Medical University School of Medicine, 880 Kitakobayashi, Mibu-machi, Shimotsuga-gun, Tochigi, 321-0293, Japan

    Satoshi Inami, Hiroshi Moridaira, Daisaku Takeuchi, Yo Shiba, Yutaka Nohara & Hiroshi Taneichi

Authors
  1. Satoshi Inami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hiroshi Moridaira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daisaku Takeuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yo Shiba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yutaka Nohara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hiroshi Taneichi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satoshi Inami.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Inami, S., Moridaira, H., Takeuchi, D. et al. Optimum pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis value can be determined by individual pelvic incidence. Eur Spine J 25, 3638–3643 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4563-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4563-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation