Correlation between pelvic tilt and the sacro-femoral-pubic angle in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, patients with congenital scoliosis, and healthy individuals
- First Online:
To examine whether the sacro-femoral-pubic (SFP) angle could estimate pelvic tilt (PT) in scoliotic and normal subjects.
One hundred nine subjects including 38 patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), 35 patients with congenital scoliosis (CS), and 36 healthy individuals were studied. PT, as the angle between the lines connecting the midpoint of the sacral plate to the centroid of one acetabulum and the vertical plane, and the SFP angle, as the angle between the midpoint of the upper sacral endplate, the centroid of one acetabulum, and the upper midpoint of the pubic symphysis, were calculated on full-length lateral and anteroposterior radiographs, respectively. Correlations between PT and the SFP angle were investigated in each group.
The three groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, and the mean SFP angle. The mean PT, however, was significantly lower in healthy subjects compared to that in patients with AIS and CS. Significant and reverse correlations were present between PT and the SFP angle in all three groups (AIS: r = −0.32, p = 0.04, PT = 82.5 − average SFP angle; CS: r = −0.48, p = 0.003, PT = 95.41 − average SFP angle; healthy: r = −0.33, p = 0.04, PT = 88.95 − average SFP angle).
Unlike two previous reports, the SFP angle correlated poorly to PT in this study, limiting its use as a suitable surrogate for PT in scoliotic and healthy subjects.
KeywordsPelvic tilt Sacro-femoral-pubic angle Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis Congenital scoliosis
- 5.Schwab F, Lafage V, Farcy JP, Bridwell K, Glassman S, Ondra S, Lowe T, Shainline M (2007) Surgical rates and operative outcome analysis in thoracolumbar and lumbar major adult scoliosis: application of the new adult deformity classification. Spine 32(24):2723–2730. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a58f2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Guo J, Liu Z, Lv F, Zhu Z, Qian B, Zhang X, Lin X, Sun X, Qiu Y (2012) Pelvic tilt and trunk inclination: new predictive factors in curve progression during the Milwaukee bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 21(10):2050–2058. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2409-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Tyrakowski M, Yu H, Siemionow K (2014) Pelvic incidence and pelvic tilt measurements using femoral heads or acetabular domes to identify centers of the hips: comparison of two methods. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3739-3 Google Scholar
- 13.Blondel B, Schwab F, Patel A, Demakakos J, Moal B, Farcy JP, Lafage V (2012) Sacro-femoral-pubic angle: a coronal parameter to estimate pelvic tilt. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 21(4):719–724. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2061-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Herring JA, Tachdjian MO, Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children (2008) Tachdjian’s pediatric orthopaedics, 4th edn. Saunders/Elsevier, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 22.Rose PS, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Cronen GA, Mulconrey DS, Buchowski JM, Kim YJ (2009) Role of pelvic incidence, thoracic kyphosis, and patient factors on sagittal plane correction following pedicle subtraction osteotomy. Spine 34(8):785–791. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819d0c86 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Jiang J, Qiu Y, Mao S, Zhao Q, Qian B, Zhu F (2010) The influence of elastic orthotic belt on sagittal profile in adolescent idiopathic thoracic scoliosis: a comparative radiographic study with Milwaukee brace. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:219. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-11-219 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Yong Q, Zhen L, Zezhang Z, Bangping Q, Feng Z, Tao W, Jun J, Xu S, Xusheng Q, Weiwei M, Weijun W (2012) Comparison of sagittal spinopelvic alignment in Chinese adolescents with and without idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. Spine 37(12):E714–E720. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182444402 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Mac-Thiong JM, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, Guigui P (2011) Age- and sex-related variations in sagittal sacropelvic morphology and balance in asymptomatic adults. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 20(Suppl 5):572–577. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1923-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Upasani VV, Tis J, Bastrom T, Pawelek J, Marks M, Lonner B, Crawford A, Newton PO (2007) Analysis of sagittal alignment in thoracic and thoracolumbar curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: how do these two curve types differ? Spine 32(12):1355–1359. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318059321d PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Yamamoto I, Crisco JJ (1994) Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. J Bone Jt Surg Am 76(3):413–424Google Scholar
- 35.Danielson ME, Beck TJ, Lian Y, Karlamangla AS, Greendale GA, Ruppert K, Lo J, Greenspan S, Vuga M, Cauley JA (2013) Ethnic variability in bone geometry as assessed by hip structure analysis: findings from the hip strength across the menopausal transition study. J Bone Miner Research Off J Am Soc Bone Miner Res 28(4):771–779. doi:10.1002/jbmr.1781 CrossRefGoogle Scholar