Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 578–584 | Cite as

Normal variation in sagittal spinal alignment parameters in adult patients: an EOS study using serial imaging

  • Hwee Weng Dennis Hey
  • Kian Loong Melvin Tan
  • Vikaesh Moorthy
  • Eugene Tze-Chun Lau
  • Leok-Lim Lau
  • Gabriel Liu
  • Hee-Kit Wong
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To describe normal variations in sagittal spinal radiographic parameters over an interval period and establish physiological norms and guidelines for which these images should be interpreted.

Methods

Data were prospectively collected from a continuous series of adult patients with first-episode mild low back pain presenting to a single institution. The sagittal parameters of two serial radiographic images taken 6-months apart were obtained with the EOS® slot scanner. Measured parameters include CL, TK, TL, LL, PI, PT, SS, and end and apical vertebrae. Chi-squared test and Wilcoxon Signed Rank test were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

Results

Sixty patients with a total of 120 whole-body sagittal X-rays were analysed. Mean age was 52.1 years (SD 21.2). Mean interval between the first and second X-rays was 126.2 days (SD 47.2). Small variations (< 1°) occur for all except PT (1.2°), CL (1.2°), and SVA (2.9 cm). Pelvic tilt showed significant difference between two images (p = 0.035). Subgroup analysis based on the time interval between X-rays, and between the first and second X-rays, did not show significant differences. Consistent findings were found for end and apical vertebrae of the thoracic and lumbar spine between the first and second X-rays for sagittal curve shapes.

Conclusions

Radiographic sagittal parameters vary between serial images and reflect dynamism in spinal balancing. SVA and PT are predisposed to the widest variation. SVA has the largest variation between individuals of low pelvic tilt. Therefore, interpretation of these parameters should be patient specific and relies on trends rather than a one-time assessment.

Keywords

EOS Low back pain Radiographic parameters Sagittal spinal alignment Serial imaging 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Darren Koh Zhi-Sheng and Jonathan Tan Jiong-Hao for their help in applying for ethics approval for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Roussouly P, Nnadi C (2010) Sagittal plane deformity: an overview of interpretation and management. Eur Spine J 19(11):1824–1836CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J, Roussouly P, Labelle H (2005) Analysis of the sagittal balance of the spine and pelvis using shape and orientation parameters. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(1):40–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    EOS Imaging. http://www.eos-imaging.com/us/homepage-6.html. Accessed 2 Apr 2017
  4. 4.
    Hey HW et al (2017) Reproducibility of sagittal radiographic parameters in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis-a guide to reference values using serial imaging. Spine J 17(6):830–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.01.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Iyer S et al (2016) Variations in sagittal alignment parameters based on age: a prospective study of asymptomatic volunteers using full-body radiographs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(23):1826–1836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Le Huec JC, Demezon H, Aunoble S (2015) Sagittal parameters of global cervical balance using EOS imaging: normative values from a prospective cohort of asymptomatic volunteers. Eur Spine J 24(1):63–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hey HW et al (2017) Cervical alignment variations in different postures and predictors of normal cervical kyphosis—a new understanding. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42(21):1614–1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hey HW et al (2016) How the spine differs in standing and in sitting-important considerations for correction of spinal deformity. Spine J 17(6):799–806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scoliosis Research Society. Revised glossary of terms. https://www.srs.org/professionals/online-education-and-resources/glossary/revised-glossary-of-terms. Accessed 13 Mar 2017
  10. 10.
    Legaye J, Duval-Beaupere G, Hecquet J, Marty C (1998) Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J 7(2):99–103CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lafage V, Schwab F, Patel A, Hawkinson N, Farcy JP (2009) Pelvic tilt and truncal inclination: two key radiographic parameters in the setting of adults with spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(17):E599–E606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roguski M et al (2014) Postoperative cervical sagittal imbalance negatively affects outcomes after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(25):2070–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Van Royen BJ, De Gast A, Smit TH (2000) Deformity planning for sagittal plane corrective osteotomies of the spine in ankylosing spondylitis. Eur Spine J 9(6):492–498CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K et al (2005) Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine 30:682–688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lazennec JY, Ramare S, Arafati N, Laudet CG, Gorin M, Roger B, Hansen S, Saillant G, Maurs L, Trabelsi R (2000) Sagittal alignment in lumbosacral fusion: relations between radiological parameters and pain. Eur Spine J 9(1):47–55CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schwab F, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy JP, Lafage V (2010) Adult spinal deformity-postoperative standing imbalance: how much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(25):2224–2231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lamartina C et al (2012) Criteria to restore the sagittal balance in deformity and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 21(Suppl 1):S27–S31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Imagama S, Ito Z, Wakao N, Seki T, Hirano K, Muramoto A, Sakai Y, Matsuyama Y, Hamajima N, Ishiguro N, Hasegawa Y (2013) Influence of spinal sagittal alignment, body balance, muscle strength, and physical ability on falling of middle-aged and elderly males. Eur Spine J 22(6):1346–1353CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yoshimoto H, Sato S, Masuda T (2005) Spinopelvic alignment in patients with osteoarthrosis of the hip: a radiographic comparison to patients with low back pain. Spine 30:1650–1657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    Hey HW et al (2017) Differences in erect sitting and natural sitting spinal alignment-insights into a new paradigm and implications in deformity correction. Spine J 17(2):183–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dolphens M, Cagnie B, Coorevits P, Vleeming A, Danneels L (2013) Classification system of the normal variation in sagittal standing plane alignment: a study among young adolescent boys. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(16):E1003–E1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bae J, Theologis A, Jang JS, Lee SH, Deviren V (2016) Impact of fatigue on maintenance of upright posture: dynamic assessment of sagittal spinal deformity parameters after walking 10 minutes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42(10):733–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wade R, Yang H, McKenna C, Faria R, Gummerson N, Woolacott N (2013) A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of EOS 2D/3D X-ray imaging system. Eur Spine J 22(2):296–304.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2469-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Orthopaedics, Hand and Reconstructive Microsurgery (UOHC)National University Health SystemSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Yong Loo Lin School of MedicineNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations