Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 691–697 | Cite as

The effect of simulating leg length inequality on spinal posture and pelvic position: a dynamic rasterstereographic analysis

  • Marcel Betsch
  • Michael WildEmail author
  • Birgit Große
  • Walter Rapp
  • Thomas Horstmann
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

Leg length inequalities (LLI) are a common finding. Rasterstereography offers a non-invasive, contact-free and reliable method to detect the effects of LLIs on spinal posture and pelvic position.

Materials and methods

A total of 115 subjects were rasterstereographically examined during different artificially created leg length inequalities (5–15 mm) using a platform. The pelvic obliquity and torsion and the lateral and frontal deviation of the spine, as well as the surface rotation, were measured.

Results

Changes in platform height led to an increase of the pelvic tilt and torsion. Only minor changes in the spinal posture were found by different simulated leg length inequalities.

Conclusions

Our study showed that there was a correlation between an artificial leg length inequality up to 15 mm and pelvic tilt or torsion, but only minor changes in the spinal posture were measured. Further studies should investigate the effects of greater leg length inequalities on spine and pelvis.

Keywords

Leg length inequality Posture Rasterstereography Pelvic tilt Pelvic torsion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

No funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Beaudoin L, Zabjek KF, Leroux MA, Coillard C, Rivard CH (1999) Acute systematic and variable postural adaptations induced by an orthopaedic shoe lift in control subjects. Eur Spine J 8:40–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Betsch M, Wild M, Jungbluth P, Thelen S, Hakimi M, Windolf J, Horstmann T, Rapp W (2010) The rasterstereographic-dynamic analysis of posture in adolescents using a modified Matthiass test. Eur Spine J 19(10):1735–1939Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brunet ME, Cook SD, Brinker MR, Dickinson JA (1990) A survey of running injuries in 1,505 competitive and recreational runners. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 30:307–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cummings G, Scholz JP, Barnes K (1993) The effect of imposed leg length difference on pelvic bone symmetry. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:368–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drerup B, Hierholzer E (1987) Automatic localization of anatomical landmarks on the back surface and construction of a body-fixed coordinate system. J Biomech 20:961–970PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drerup B, Hierholzer E (1987) Movement of the human pelvis and displacement of related anatomical landmarks on the body surface. J Biomech 20:971–977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drerup B, Hierholzer E (1992) Evaluation of frontal radiographs of scoliotic spines–Part I. Measurement of position and orientation of vertebrae and assessment of clinical shape parameters. J Biomech 25:1357–1362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drerup B, Ellger B, Meyer zu Bentrup FM, Hierholzer E (2001) Functional rasterstereographic images. A new method for biomechanical analysis of skeletal geometry. Orthopade 30:242–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friberg O (1983) Clinical symptoms and biomechanics of lumbar spine and hip joint in leg length inequality. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8:643–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frobin W, Hierholzer E (1982) Analysis of human back shape using surface curvatures. J Biomech 15:379–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Froh R, Yong-Hing K, Cassidy JD, Houston CS (1988) The relationship between leg length discrepancy and lumbar facet orientation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:325–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gross RH (1978) Leg length discrepancy: how much is too much? Orthopedics 1:307–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guichet JM, Spivak JM, Trouilloud P, Grammont PM (1991) Lower limb-length discrepancy. An epidemiologic study. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 235–241Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gurney B (2002) Leg length discrepancy. Gait Posture 15:195–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hackenberg L, Hierholzer E, Liljenqvist U (2002) Accuracy of rasterstereography versus radiography in idiopathic scoliosis after anterior correction and fusion. Stud Health Technol Inform 91:241–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hackenberg L, Hierholzer E, Bullmann V, Liljenqvist U, Gotze C (2006) Rasterstereographic analysis of axial back surface rotation in standing versus forward bending posture in idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 15:1144–1149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hierholzer E, Hackenberg L (2002) Three-dimensional shape analysis of the scoliotic spine using MR tomography and rasterstereography. Stud Health Technol Inform 91:184–189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huysmans T, Van Audekercke R, Vander Sloten J, Bruyninckx H, Van der Perre G (2005) A three-dimensional active shape model for the detection of anatomical landmarks on the back surface. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 219:129–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knutson GA (2005) Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: a review and recommendation for clinical decision-making. Part II. The functional or unloaded leg-length asymmetry. Chiropr Osteopat 13:12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knutson GA (2005) Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: a review and recommendation for clinical decision-making. Part I, anatomic leg-length inequality: prevalence, magnitude, effects and clinical significance. Chiropr Osteopat 13:11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liljenqvist U, Halm H, Hierholzer E, Drerup B, Weiland M (1998) 3-dimensional surface measurement of spinal deformities with video rasterstereography. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 136:57–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Melvin M, Sylvia M, Udo W, Helmut S, Paletta JR, Adrian S (2010) Reproducibility of rasterstereography for kyphotic and lordotic angles, trunk length, and trunk inclination: a reliability study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1353–1358Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Papaioannou T, Stokes I, Kenwright J (1982) Scoliosis associated with limb-length inequality. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64:59–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Perttunen JR, Anttila E, Sodergard J, Merikanto J, Komi PV (2004) Gait asymmetry in patients with limb length discrepancy. Scand J Med Sci Sports 14:49–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pitkin HC PH (1936) Sacrarthrogenetic telalgia: II. A study of sacral mobility. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 365–374Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schulte TL, Hierholzer E, Boerke A, Lerner T, Liljenqvist U, Bullmann V, Hackenberg L (2008) Raster stereography versus radiography in the long-term follow-up of idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:23–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Soukka A, Alaranta H, Tallroth K, Heliovaara M (1991) Leg-length inequality in people of working age. The association between mild inequality and low-back pain is questionable. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16:429–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Subotnick SI (1981) Limb length discrepancies of the lower extremity (the short leg syndrome). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 3:11–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ten Brinke A, van der Aa HE, van der Palen J, Oosterveld F (1999) Is leg length discrepancy associated with the side of radiating pain in patients with a lumbar herniated disc? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:684–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Young RS, Andrew PD, Cummings GS (2000) Effect of simulating leg length inequality on pelvic torsion and trunk mobility. Gait Posture 11:217–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel Betsch
    • 1
  • Michael Wild
    • 1
    Email author
  • Birgit Große
    • 2
  • Walter Rapp
    • 2
  • Thomas Horstmann
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Trauma and Hand SurgeryHeinrich Heine University HospitalDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Department of Sports MedicineEberhard Karls University HospitalTuebingenGermany
  3. 3.Department of OrthopedicsMedical Park St. HubertusBad WiesseeGermany

Personalised recommendations