Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimal chin-brow vertical angle for sagittal visual fields in ankylosing spondylitis kyphosis

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

Abstract

Purpose

Chin-brow vertical angle (CBVA) is very important in correction of thoracolumbar kyphotic deformity in ankylosing spondylitis (AS), especially for the patients with cervical ankylosis. In previous study, Suk et al. stated that the patients with CBVA between −10° and 10° had better horizontal gaze. Unfortunately, in our clinical practice, we found the patients with CBVA between −10° and 10° after surgery usually complained of difficulty in cooking, cleaning, desk working and the like, although they had excellent horizontal gaze. In other words, for the patients with cervical ankylosis, good horizontal gaze existed together with poor downward gaze. Then, which condition do the patients prefer? Is there a compromise solution that makes a better quality life possible for the patients? In this research, we studied AS patients with cervical ankylosis, aiming to investigate the optimal CBVA for deformity correction.

Methods

25 AS thoracolumbar kyphotic patients with cervical ankylosis were studied, whose function and expectation of visual field related to life quality were assessed by questionnaire before and after surgery. Pre- and post-operative CBVA were obtained on lateral photos of the patients with free-standing posture, and 50 cases of CBVA were included, which were divided into six groups according to the angle irrespective of surgery (Group A, CBVA <0°; Group B, 0° ≤ CBVA < 10°; Group C, 10° ≤ CBVA < 20°; Group D, 20° ≤ CBVA < 30°; Group E, 30° ≤ CBVA < 40°; Group F, CBVA ≥ 40°). Kruskal–Wallis test was used to assess all the groups in terms of various items in the questionnaire, while Mann–Whitney test was used to assess every two groups.

Results

In overall evaluation, Group C (10°–20°) obtained the optimal expectation (p < 0.05); Group B, C and D (0°–30°) obtained better function (p < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between the 3 groups. In appearance, Group A, B and C (<20°) were better than the other groups both in function and expectation (p < 0.05), without dramatic difference among the three groups. In outdoor activities, Group A, B, C and D (<30°) were better in most of the items (p < 0.05). In indoor activities, Group C and D (10-30°) were much better (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

AS thoracolumbar kyphotic patients with cervical ankylosis had the best satisfaction when 10° ≤ CBVA < 20°.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bridwell KH, Lewis SJ, Lenke LG et al (2003) Pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the treatment of fixed sagittal imbalance. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:454–463

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Debarge R, Demey G, Roussouly P (2010) Radiological analysis of ankylosing spondylitis patients with severe kyphosis before and after pedicle subtraction osteotomy. Eur Spine J 19:65–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. DL/T 525.2-1999 (2000) Ergonomic principles for the design of control centres part 2: visual fields and zones of field of vision. Power Automation Research Institute of State Power Corporation (China)

  4. Feigin DS (2010) Lateral chest radiograph a systematic approach. Acad Radiol 17:1560–1566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. ISO 9355-2-1999 (1999) Ergonomic requirements for the design of displays and control actuators—part 2: displays. International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

  6. Kim KT, Suk KS, Cho YJ et al (2002) Clinical outcome results of pedicle subtraction osteotomy in ankylosing spondylitis with kyphotic deformity. Spine 27:612–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lazennec JY, Saillant G, Saidi K et al (1997) Surgery of the deformities in ankylosing spondylitis: our experience of lumbar osteotomies in 31 patients. Eur Spine J 6:222–232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Le Huec JCL, Saddiki R, Franke J et al (2011) Equilibrium of the human body and the gravity line: the basics. Eur Spine J 20:S558–S563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Raoof S, Feigin D, Sung A et al (2012) Interpretation of plain chest roentgenogram. Chest 141(2):545–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Noseda O et al (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 153 asymptomatic volunteers. Spine 31:E320–E325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sengupta DK, Khazim R, Grevitt MP et al (2001) Flexion osteotomy of the cervical spine: a new technique for correction of iatrogenic extension deformity in ankylosing spondylitis. Spine 26:1068–1072

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scheer JK, Tang JA, Smith JS et al (2013) Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: a review. J Neurosurg Spine 19(2):p141–p159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwab F, Lafage V, Boyce R et al (2006) Gravity line analysis in adult volunteers age-related correlation with spinal parameters, pelvic parameters, and foot position. Spine 31:E959–E967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shin JK, Lee JS, Goh TS et al (2014) Correlation between clinical outcome and spinopelvic parameters in ankylosing spondylitis. Eur Spine J 23(1):p242–p247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith-Petersen MN, Larson CB, Aufranc OE (1945) Osteotomy of the spine for correction of flexion deformity in rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg 27:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  16. Song K, Zheng G, Zhang Y et al (2013) A new method for calculating the exact angle required for spinal osteotomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(10):E616–E620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Song K, Zheng G, Zhang Y et al (2014) Hilus pulmonis as the center of gravity for AS thoracolumbar kyphosis. Eur Spine J 23(12):2743–2750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Suk KS, Kim KT, Lee SH et al (2003) Significance of chinbrow vertical angle in correction of kyphotic deformity of ankylosing spondylitis patients. Spine 28:2001–2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Van Royen BJ, De Gast A (1999) Lumbar osteotomy for correction of thoracolumbar kyphotic deformity in ankylosing spondylitis. A structured review of three methods of treatment. Ann Rheum Dis 58:399–406

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Van Royen BJ, Gast AD, Smit TH (2000) Deformity planning for sagittal plane corrective osteotomies of the spine in ankylosing spondylitis. Eur Spine J 9:492–498

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Royen BJ, Slot GH (1995) Closing wedge posterior osteotomy for ankylosing spondylitis. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 77:117–121

    Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang HQ, Huang J, Guo CF et al (2014) Two-level pedicle subtraction osteotomy for severe thoracolumbar kyphotic deformity in ankylosing spondylitis. Eur Spine J 23(1):p234–p241

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, 28 Fuxing Road, Beijing, 100853, People’s Republic of China

    Kai Song, Xiaojing Su, Yonggang Zhang, Chao Liu, Xiangyu Tang, Guoying Zhang, Guoquan Zheng, Geng Cui, Xuesong Zhang, Keya Mao, Zheng Wang & Yan Wang

Authors
  1. Kai Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaojing Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yonggang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chao Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiangyu Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Guoying Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Guoquan Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Geng Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Xuesong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Keya Mao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Zheng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Yan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zheng Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Additional information

First author: K. Song, and co-first author: X. Su.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, K., Su, X., Zhang, Y. et al. Optimal chin-brow vertical angle for sagittal visual fields in ankylosing spondylitis kyphosis. Eur Spine J 25, 2596–2604 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4588-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4588-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation