Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 531–536 | Cite as

Relation between the sagittal pelvic and lumbar spine geometries following surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

  • Frédéric Tanguay
  • Jean-Marc Mac-Thiong
  • Jacques A. de Guise
  • Hubert Labelle
Original Article

Abstract

Sagittal spinopelvic relations have been reported in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), but there is little information on their effect following surgery. The objective of this study is to evaluate the relation between the pelvic and lumbar spine geometries following posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion (PSIF). Sixty patients with AIS undergoing PSIF were studied retrospectively. Thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), LL within and below fusion, pelvic incidence (PI), sacral slope (SS) and pelvic tilt (PT) were measured on preoperative and postoperative standing lateral radiographs. Significant postoperative correlations were found between PI and LL (= 0.67), SS and LL (= 0.90), PI and LL below fusion (= 0.40), SS and LL below fusion (= 0.48). Pelvic parameters did not influence LL within fusion. A strong correlation was found between LL below and within fusion (= −0.76). The close interdependence between lumbar lordosis and pelvic geometry preoperatively is maintained postoperatively following PSIF. In the planning of surgery for AIS, it may be helpful to evaluate the sagittal pelvic morphology (PI) in addition to the spinal curves. Preoperative evaluation of the pelvic morphology could be used to optimize intraoperative positioning of the patient and to determine the optimal amount of LL that needs to be restored or preserved by the instrumentation, so that LL remains congruent with the pelvic morphology.

Keywords

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis Lumbar lordosis Pelvic morphology Sagittal alignment Spinal instrumentation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D), by the Fonds de Recherche en Santé du Québec and by the Strategic Training Grants Program (MENTOR program) of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

References

  1. 1.
    Benfanti PL, Geissele AE (1997) The effect of intraoperative hip position on maintenance of lumbar lordosis: a radiographic study of anesthetized patients and unanesthetized volunteers on the Wilson frame. Spine 22:2299–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berthonnaud É, Dimnet J, Roussouly P, et al. (2005) Analysis of the sagittal balance of the spine and pelvis using shape and orientation parameters. J Spinal Disord 18:40–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cochran T, Irstam L, Nachemson A (1983) Long-term anatomic and functional changes in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by Harrington rod fusion. Spine 8:576–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    During J, Goudfrooij H, Keessen W, et al. (1985) Toward standards for posture. Postural characteristics of the lower back system in normal and pathologic conditions. Spine 10:83–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faro FD, Marks MC, Pawelek J, et al. (2004) Evaluation of a functional position for lateral radiograph acquisition in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 29:2284–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Hsu WK, et al. (2003) L5–S1 segment survivorship and clinical outcome analysis after L4–L5 isolated fusion. Spine 28:1275–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guanciale AF, Dinsay JM, Watkins RG (1996) Lumbar lordosis in spinal fusion. A comparison of intraoperative results of patient positioning on two different operative table frame types. Spine 21:964–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hayes MA, Tompkins SF, Herndon WA, et al. (1988) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of lumbosacral motion below fusion levels in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 13:1161–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horton WC, Brown CW, Bridwell KH, et al. (2005) Is there an optimal patient stance for obtaining a lateral 36″ radiograph? A critical comparison of three techniques. Spine 30:427–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hulley SB (2001) Designing clinical research: an epidemiologic approach. San Fransisco: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; pp. 69–70Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jackson RP, Phipps T, Hales C, et al. (2003) Pelvic lordosis and alignment in spondylolisthesis. Spine 28:151–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D (2001) Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J 10:314–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Labelle H, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, Transfeldt E, O’Brien M, Hresko T, Chopin D, Dimnet J (2004) Spondylolisthesis, pelvic incidence and sagittal spino-pelvic balance: a correlation study. Spine 29:2049–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Legaye J, Duval-Beaupere G, Hecquet J, et al. (1998) Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J 7:99–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Legaye J, Hecquet J, Marty C, et al. (1993) Sagittal equilibration of the spine: relationship between pelvis and sagittal spinal curves in the standing position. Rachis 5:215–6 [in French]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mac-Thiong JM, LabelleH, Berthonnaud E, et al. (2006) Sagittal spino-pelvic balance in normal children and adolescents. Eur Spine J 14:1–8Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mac-Thiong JM, Labelle H, Charlebois M, et al. (2003) Sagittal plane analysis of the spine and pelvis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis according to the coronal curve type. Spine 28:1404–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rillardon L, Levassor N, Guigui P, et al. (2003) Validation of a tool to measure pelvic and spinal parameters of sagittal balance. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appl Mot 89:218–27 [in French]Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rinella A, Bridwell K, Kim Y, et al. (2004) Late complications of adult idiopathic scoliosis primary fusions to L4 and above: the effect of age and distal fusion level. Spine 29:318–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stephens GC, Yoo JU, Wilbur G (1996) Comparison of lumbar sagittal alignment produced by different operative positions. Spine 21:1802–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vaz G, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, et al. (2002) Sagittal morphology and equilibrium of pelvis and spine. Eur Spine J 11:80–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vedantam R, Lenke LG, Keeney JA, et al. (1998) Comparison of standing sagittal spinal alignment in asymptomatic adolescents and adults. Spine 23:211–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wasylenko M, Skinner SR, Perry J, et al. (1983) An analysis of posture and gait following spinal fusion with Harrington instrumentation. Spine 8:840–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frédéric Tanguay
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jean-Marc Mac-Thiong
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jacques A. de Guise
    • 3
    • 4
  • Hubert Labelle
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Division of Orthopaedic SurgeryCHU Sainte-JustineMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Laboratoire d’Imagerie en Orthopédie, Research Center, CHUMUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Department of Automated Production EngineeringÉcole de Technologie SupérieureMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations