European Spine Journal

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 725–732 | Cite as

Iliac crest orientation and geometry in able-bodied and non-treated adolescent idiopathic scoliosis girls with moderate and severe spinal deformity

  • Georgios A. Stylianides
  • Marléne Beaulieu
  • Georges Dalleau
  • Charles-Hilaire Rivard
  • Paul Allard
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To identify pelvic rotation and/or distortion in able-bodied and untreated AIS girls with moderate and severe scoliosis and verify association of pelvic morphological changes with Cobb angle increase.

Methods

The 3D coordinates of nine anatomic bony landmarks were identified to estimate pelvic orientation using a Flock of Birds system. The distances between the first sacral vertebral body (S1) and each of the eight iliac spine landmarks in all three planes were calculated to identify pelvic distortion. Analysis of variance was used to assess pelvic orientation and determine pelvic distortion. Pearson coefficients of correlation were used to identify any relationships between Cobb angle and pelvic morphological parameters.

Results

Pelvic orientation was similar in able-bodied and scoliotic girls regardless of the severity of the spinal deformity. Significant differences were observed in pelvic morphology between AIS with severe untreated scoliosis and those with a moderate scoliosis for the right anterosuperior iliac spines (ASIS), the tip of the superior iliac crest (TSIC) and the widest tip of the iliac crest (WTIC) widths from S1. Statistically significant correlations were observed between the Cobb angles and the iliac crest distances measured from S1.

Conclusions

Differences in iliac spine geometries occurred in the transverse plane correlating to Cobb angles which suggest altered bone growth in AIS girls. Such findings could indicate right thoracic spinal deformity as a result of pelvic torsion.

Keywords

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis Moderate spinal deformity Severe spinal deformity Biomechanics 

References

  1. 1.
    Stokes IAF (1994) Three-dimensional terminology of spinal deformity: a report presented to the Scoliosis Research Society by the Scoliosis Research Society Working Group on 3-D terminology of spinal deformity. Spine 19:236–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldberg CJ, Kaliszer M, Moore DP et al (2001) Surface topography, Cobb angles, and cosmetic change in scoliosis. Spine 26:E55–E63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nault ML, Allard P, Hinse S et al (2002) Relationships between standing stability and body posture parameters in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 27:1911–1917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mac-Thiong J-M, Labelle H, Charlesbois M et al (2003) Sagittal plane analysis of the spine and pelvis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis according to the coronal curve type. Spine 13:1404–1409Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Saji M, Upadhyay S, Leong J (1995) Increased femoral neck–shaft angles in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 20:303–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mahaudens P, Thonnard J-L, Detrembleur C (2005) Influence of structural pelvic disorders during standing and walking in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine J 5:427–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zabjek KF, Leroux MA, Coillard C et al (2005) Evaluation of segmental postural characteristics during quiet standing in control and idiopathic scoliosis patients. Gait Posture 20:483–490Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pasha S, Sangole AP, Aubin C-É et al (2010) Characterizing pelvis dynamics in adolescent with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35:E820–E826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gum JL, Asher MA, Burton DC et al (2007) Transverse plane pelvic rotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: primary or compensatory? Eur Spine J 16:1579–1586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burwell RG, Cole AA, Cook TA et al (1992) Pathogenesis of idiopathic scoliosis: the Nottingham Concept. Acta Orthop Belg 58(Suppl.1):33–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burwell RG, Freeman BJ, Dangerfield PH et al (2006) Etiologic theories of idiopathic scoliosis: neurodevelopmental concepts of maturational delay of the CNS body schema (“body-in-the-brain”). Stud Health Technol Inform 123:72–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nicolopoulos KS, Burwell RG, Webb JK (1985) Stature and its component in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: cephalocaudal disproportion in the trunk of girls. J Bone Jt Surg 67B:594–601Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    LeBlanc R, Labelle H, Rivard C-H et al (1997) Relation between adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and morphologic somatotypes. Spine 22:2532–2536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lowe TG, Edgar M, Margulies JY et al (2000) Etiology of idiopathic scoliosis: current trends in research. J Bone Jt Surg Am 82:1157–1168Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dickson RA, Sevitt EA (1982) Growth and idiopathic scoliosis: a longitudinal cohort study. J Bone Jt Surg Br 64:385Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lonstein JE, Carlson M (1984) The prediction of curve progression in untreated idiopathic scoliosis during growth. J Bone Jt Surg 66:1061–1071Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bunnell WP (1986) The natural history of idiopathic scoliosis before skeletal maturity. Spine 11:773–776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McIlroy WE, Maki BE (1997) Preferred placement of the feet during quiet stance: development of a standardized foot placement for balance testing. Clin Biomech 12:66–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bellefleur C, Labelle H, Dansereau J et al (1994) Évaluation tridimensionnelle per-opératoire de la procédure Cotrel-Dubousset pour le traitement de la scoliose idiopathique. Ann Chir 48:723–730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dao TV, Labelle H, LeBlanc R (1997) Intra-observer variability of measurement of posture with three-dimensional digitization. Ann Chir 51:848–853PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Holland BS, Copenhaver M (1988) Improved Bonferroni-type multiple testing procedures. Psychol Bull 104:145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chockalingam N, Danderfield PH, Giakas G et al (2002) Study of marker placement in the back for opto-electronic motion analysis. Stud Health Technol Inform 88:105–109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burwell RG, Dangerfield PH, Vernon CL (1981) Bone asymmetry and joint laxity in the upper limbs of children with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Ann R Coll Surg Eng 63:209Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mehta MH (1981) Moire topography and associated asymmetries in scoliosis. In: Moreland MS, Pope MH, Armstrong GWD (eds) Moire fringe topography and spinal deformity: proceedings of an international symposium. Pergamon Press, New York, 186–189Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dalleau G, Allard M, Beaulieu M et al (2007) Free moment contribution to quiet standing in able-bodied and scoliotic girls. Eur Spine J 16:1593–1599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beaulieu M, Allard P, Simoneau M et al (2010) Relationship between axial rotation and center of pressure displacements in single and double leg upright stance. J Phys Med Rehabil 89:809–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dalleau G, Damavandi M, Leroyer P, Verkindt C, Rivard CH, Allard P (2011) Horizontal body and trunk center of mass offset and standing balance in scoliotic girls. Eur Spine J 20(1):123–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bruyneel AV, Chavet P, Bollini G, Allard P, Berton E, Mesure S (2009) Dynamical asymmetries in idiopathic scoliosis during forward and lateral initiation step. Eur Spine J 18(2):188–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Amendt LE, Ause-Ellias KL, Lundahl-Eybers J et al (1990) Validity and reliability testing of the scoliometer. Phys Ther 70:108–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Qiu XS, Ma WW, Li WG, Wang B, Yu Y, Zhu ZZ, Qian BP, Zhu F, Sun X, Ng BK, Cheng JC, Qiu Y (2009) Discrepancy between radiographic shoulder balance and cosmetic shoulder balance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients with double thoracic curve. Eur Spine J 18(1):45–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Phan P, Mezghani N, Aubin CE, de Guise JA, Labelle H (2011) Computer algorithms and applications used to assist the evaluation and treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a review of published articles 2000–2009. Eur Spine J 20(7):1058–1068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgios A. Stylianides
    • 1
  • Marléne Beaulieu
    • 2
  • Georges Dalleau
    • 3
  • Charles-Hilaire Rivard
    • 4
    • 5
  • Paul Allard
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Exercise Science and Sport, John Long CenterUniversity of ScrantonScrantonUSA
  2. 2.Department of KinesiologyUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada
  3. 3.CURAPS-DIMPS, Faculté des Sciences de l’Homme et de l’EnvironnementUniversité de la RéunionLe TamponFrance
  4. 4.Human Movement Laboratory, Research CentreSaint-Justine HospitalMontrealCanada
  5. 5.Department of Orthopedic SurgerySainte-Justine HospitalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations