Skip to main content


Log in

Analysis of cervical and global spine alignment under Roussouly sagittal classification in Chinese cervical spondylotic patients and asymptomatic subjects

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript



To explore the relationship between cervical spine and the global spine alignment and to postulate the hypotheses that a lordotic alignment of cervical spine is not the only standard to identify asymptomatic subjects, and the degenerative modification of cervical curves depends primarily on their spinal-pelvic alignment.


A cohort of 120 cases of Chinese asymptomatic subjects and a cohort of 121 cases of Chinese cervical spondylotic patients were recruited prospectively from 2011 to 2012. Roussouly Classification was utilized to categorize all subjects and patients according to their thoracic spine, lumbar spine and pelvic alignment. The cervical alignments were evaluated as lordosis, straight, sigmoid or kyphosis. Through the lateral X-ray images of neutral cervical and global spine, a number of parameters were measured and analyzed, including pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis, global cervical angles (angles between two lines parallel with posterior walls of C2 and C7), practical cervical angles (the addition of different cervical end plate angles from C3 to C7, and inter-vertebral angles from C23 to C67), T1 slope, spinal sacral angles (SSA), Hip to C7/Hip to Sacrum and C0–C2 angle.


The percentages of cervical lordosis were 28.3 % and 36.4 % in asymptomatic and spondylotic group, respectively. The cervical spine alignments correlated with Roussouly types of global spine alignment in both asymptomatic and cervical spondylotic group (P < 0.001). And there were significant differences between Roussouly Type 2 and 4, Type 3 and 4, Type 1 and 3 in cervical angles in spondylotic group (P < 0.05). In the comparison of the two cohorts, significant differences were found in both general and practical cervical angles in Roussouly Type 4 (P = 0.00 and 0.01, respectively), and there were significant differences in inter-vertebral angle in Roussouly Type 2 at C4–5 and C5–6 levels (P = 0.04 and 0.04, respectively), and in Roussouly Type 3 at C6–7 level (P = 0.01). The SSA showed significant difference between Roussouly Type 2 and 4 in asymptomatic subjects (P = 0.00), and between Type 1 and 3, 1 and 4, 2 and 3, 2 and 4 in cervical spondylotic patients (P = 0.01, 0.02, 0.00 and 0.01, respectively). The T1 slope was significantly different among Roussouly types (P = 0.04) with its largest value in Type 1 in cervical spondylotic group. There are significant differences in C0–C2 angles in all Roussouly types (P = 0.01, 0.02, 0.00 and 0.01, respectively), as well as in the ratio of Hip to C7/hip to sacrum in Type 2 (P = 0.01), and Type 3 (P = 0.00) in the comparison of the two cohorts. The multiple linear regression of all parameters showed both general and practical cervical angles were significantly related to TK, C0–C2 and T1 slope (P = 0.01, 0.00 and 0.00, respectively).


The cervical alignment correlates with their global spine and pelvic curves. And lordosis is not the only presentation in asymptomatic subjects. The degenerative modification of cervical disc angles was the compensation of global spine degeneration for horizontal gaze. Cervical angles are influenced by their TK angles, occipital-C2 joint and the tilt of T1 vertebral body. The occipital-C2 joint has a compensating mechanism in all Roussouly types in cervical spondylosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Consent was obtained from each subject or patient with the approval from Peking University Third Hospital Institutional Review Board.


  1. Gore DR, Sepic SB, Gardner GM (1986) Roentgenographic findings of the cervical spine in asymptomatic people. Spine 11:521–524

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kasai T, Ikata T, Katoh S et al (1996) Growth of the cervical spine with special reference to its lordosis and mobility. Spine 21(18):2067–2073

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Harrison DD, Troyanovich SJ, Harrison DE et al (1996) A normal sagittal spinal configuration: a desirable clinical outcome. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 19:398–405

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee CS, Noh H, Lee DH et al (2012) Analysis of sagittal spinal alignment in 181 asymptomatic children. J Spinal Disord Tech 25(8):E259–E263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hardacker JW, Shuford RF, Capicotto PN et al (1997) Radiographic standing cervical segmental alignment in adult volunteers without neck symptoms. Spine 22:1472–1480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boyle J, Milne N, Singer K (2002) Influence of age on cervicothoracic spinal curvature: an ex vivo radiographic surgery. Clin Biomech 17:361–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mac-Thiong JM, Labelle H, Charlebois M (2003) Sagittal plane analysis of the spine and pelvis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis according to the coronal curve type. Spine 28(13):1404–1409

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E et al (2005) Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine 30(3):346–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Legaye J, Duval-Beaupere G, Hecquet J et al (1998) Pelvic incidence: a fundamental parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J 7(2):99–103

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Noseda O et al (2006) The vertical projection of the sum of the ground reactive forces of a standing patient is not the same as the C7 plumb line. A radiographic study of the sagittal alignment of 153 asymptomatic volunteers. Spine 31(11):E320–E325

  11. Barrey C, Jund J, Noseda O et al (2007) Sagittal balance of the pelvis-spine complex and lumbar degenerative disease. A comparative study about 85 cases. Eur Spine J 16(9):1459–1467

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Matsunaga S, Onishi T, Sakou T (2001) Significance of occipitoaxial angle in subaxial lesion after occipitocervical fusion. Spine 26(2):161–165

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Knott PT, Mardjetko SM, Techy F (2010) The use of the T1 sagittal angle in predicting overall sagittal balance of the spine. Spine J 10:994–998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ohara A, Miyamoto K, Naganwa T et al (2006) Reliabilities of and correlations among five standard methods of assessing the sagittal alignment of the cervical spine. Spine 31(22):2585–2591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Park MS, Moon SH, Lee HM et al (2013) The effect of age on cervical sagittal alignment normative data on 100 asymptomatic subjects. Spine 38(8):E458–E463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mac-Thiong J.M., Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E et al (2010) Sagittal parameters of global spinal balance normative values from a prospective cohort of seven hundred nine Caucasian asymptomatic adult. Spine 35(22):E1193–1198

  17. Gore DR (2001) Roentgenographic findings in the cervical spine in asymptomatic persons: a ten-year follow-up. Spine 26(22):2463–2466

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest


Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhong-Jun Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, M., Zhao, WK., Li, M. et al. Analysis of cervical and global spine alignment under Roussouly sagittal classification in Chinese cervical spondylotic patients and asymptomatic subjects. Eur Spine J 24, 1265–1273 (2015).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: