Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 11, pp 3644–3649 | Cite as

Global tilt: a single parameter incorporating spinal and pelvic sagittal parameters and least affected by patient positioning

  • I. Obeid
  • L. Boissière
  • C. Yilgor
  • D. Larrieu
  • F. Pellisé
  • A. Alanay
  • E. Acaroglu
  • F. J. Perez-Grueso
  • F. Kleinstück
  • J. M. Vital
  • A. Bourghli
  • on behalf of European Spine Study Group, ESSG
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Regarding the close interaction between the spinal alignment and the pelvis orientation, no parameter is routinely used to describe and to evaluate the global spinopelvic balance, taking into account simultaneously the spinal part and the pelvic part of the global alignment. We described the global tilt (GT) that could analyze malalignment considering the spine and the pelvis simultaneously. From a geometrical point of view, the global tilt is the sum of the pelvic tilt (PT) and the C7 vertical tilt (angular value of sagittal vertical axis). The aim of this study is to evaluate the global tilt with comparison to PT and sagittal vertical axis (SVA), with the hypothesis that GT would be the least sensitive to positional changes.

Methods

A cohort of 22 patients with sagittal malalignment was identified from a multicentric database of adult spinal deformities (ASD). Inclusion criteria were age >30 years, SVA > 40 mm and/or PT > 20°. All patients had full spine EOS radiographs in positions 1 and 2 (P1 and P2), in which the patient was asked to stand and put his hands on his shoulders without any effort (P1), or to make an effort to be as straight as possible (P2). PT, SVA and GT were measured in both positions and changes between P1 and P2 were calculated and compared using Student’s t test with significance level at p < 0.05.

Results

No significant changes were observed for GT; SVA and PT were significantly influenced by patient positioning. SVA decreased and PT increased for all cases in P2 whereas the changes in GT were in either direction. The average increase in PT was 7.1° (±5.4) or 30.8 % (±24.9); decrease in SVA was 45.1 mm (±25.6) or 60.0 % (±44.2) while the change in GT was 4.4° (±3.3) or 12.6 % (±9.3).

Discussion

GT appears to be less affected by the patient’s position compared to SVA and PT. This seems logical because GT contains both spinal alignment and pelvic compensation; it is not affected by their changes in opposing directions.

Conclusion

GT appears to be the most reliable single sagittal plane parameter in ASD. It is the least affected by patient position and incorporates both the pelvic and the spinal alignment within one measure.

Keywords

Global tilt Spinal-pelvic balance Spinal malalignment Adult spinal deformity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

European Spine Study group receives a grant by Depuy Synthes.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Dubousset J, Challier V, Farcy J (2014) Spinal alignment versus spinal balance. In: Global spinal alignment: principles, pathologies, and procedures book. Quality Medical Publishing, pp 3–9Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mac-Thiong JM, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, Guigui P (2010) Sagittal parameters of global spinal balance: normative values from a prospective cohort of 709 Caucasian asymptomatic adults. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(22):E1193–E1198. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e50808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwab F, Lafage V, Patel A, Farcy JP (2009) Sagittal plane considerations and the pelvis in the adult patient. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(17):1828–1833. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a13c08 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dubousset J, Charpak G, Dorion I, Skalli W, Lavaste F, Deguise J, Kalifa G, Ferey S (2005) A new 2D and 3D imaging approach to musculoskeletal physiology and pathology with low-dose radiation and the standing position: the EOS system. Bull Acad Natl Med 189(2):287–297 (discussion 297–300) PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, Horton W, Dimar JR (2005) Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(6):682–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F (2005) The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(18):2024–2029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Obeid I, Hauger O, Aunoble S, Bourghli A, Pellet N, Vital JM (2011) Global analysis of sagittal spinal alignment in major deformities: correlation between lack of lumbar lordosis and flexion of the knee. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 5):681–685. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1936-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Labelle H, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J, O’Brien M (2005) The importance of spino-pelvic balance in L5-s1 developmental spondylolisthesis: a review of pertinent radiologic measurements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(6 Suppl):S27–S34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2005) Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(3):346–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schwab F, Lafage V, Boyce R, Skalli W, Farcy JP (2006) Gravity line analysis in adult volunteers: age-related correlation with spinal parameters, pelvic parameters, and foot position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(25):E959–E967. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000248126.96737.0f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vialle R, Levassor N, Rillardon L, Templier A, Skalli W, Guigui P (2005) Radiographic analysis of the sagittal alignment and balance of the spine in asymptomatic subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(2):260–267. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02043 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boissiere L, Bourghli A, Vital JM, Gille O, Obeid I (2013) The lumbar lordosis index: a new ratio to detect spinal malalignment with a therapeutic impact for sagittal balance correction decisions in adult scoliosis surgery. Eur Spine J 22(6):1339–1345. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2711-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roussouly P, Nnadi C (2010) Sagittal plane deformity: an overview of interpretation and management. Eur Spine J 19(11):1824–1836. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1476-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Banno T, Togawa D, Arima H, Hasegawa T, Yamato Y, Kobayashi S, Yasuda T, Oe S, Hoshino H, Matsuyama Y (2016) The cohort study for the determination of reference values for spinopelvic parameters (T1 pelvic angle and global tilt) in elderly volunteers. Eur Spine J. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4411-x Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Protopsaltis T, Schwab F, Bronsard N, Smith JS, Klineberg E, Mundis G, Ryan DJ, Hostin R, Hart R, Burton D, Ames C, Shaffrey C, Bess S, Errico T, Lafage V, International Spine Study G (2014) TheT1 pelvic angle, a novel radiographic measure of global sagittal deformity, accounts for both spinal inclination and pelvic tilt and correlates with health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(19):1631–1640. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.01459 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Qiao J, Zhu F, Xu L, Liu Z, Zhu Z, Qian B, Sun X, Qiu Y (2014) T1 pelvic angle: a new predictor for postoperative sagittal balance and clinical outcomes in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(25):2103–2107. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000635 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ryan DJ, Protopsaltis TS, Ames CP, Hostin R, Klineberg E, Mundis GM, Obeid I, Kebaish K, Smith JS, Boachie-Adjei O, Burton DC, Hart RA, Gupta M, Schwab FJ, Lafage V (2014) T1 pelvic angle (TPA) effectively evaluates sagittal deformity and assesses radiographical surgical outcomes longitudinally. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(15):1203–1210. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boissiere L, Vital JM, Aunoble S, Fabre T, Gille O, Obeid I (2015) Lumbo-pelvic related indexes: impact on adult spinal deformity surgery. Eur Spine J 24(6):1212–1218. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3402-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Obeid
    • 1
  • L. Boissière
    • 1
  • C. Yilgor
    • 2
  • D. Larrieu
    • 1
  • F. Pellisé
    • 3
  • A. Alanay
    • 2
  • E. Acaroglu
    • 4
  • F. J. Perez-Grueso
    • 5
  • F. Kleinstück
    • 6
  • J. M. Vital
    • 1
  • A. Bourghli
    • 7
  • on behalf of European Spine Study Group, ESSG
  1. 1.Spine Unit 1Bordeaux University HospitalBordeauxFrance
  2. 2.Spine Surgery UnitAcibadem Maslak HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Spine Surgery UnitHospital Universitario Val HebronBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Ankara Acibadem Spine CenterAnkaraTurkey
  5. 5.Spine Surgery UnitHospital Universitario La PazMadridSpain
  6. 6.Spine CenterSchulthess KlinikZurichSwitzerland
  7. 7.Orthopedic and Spinal Surgery DepartmentKingdom HospitalRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations