Skip to main content

Assessment of the axial plane deformity in subjects with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and its relationship to the frontal and sagittal planes

Abstract

Purpose

Investigate the axial plane deformity in the scoliotic segment and its relationship to the deformity in the frontal and sagittal planes.

Methods

Two hundred subjects with AIS (Cobb ≥ 20°) underwent low dose biplanar X-rays with 3D reconstruction of the spine and pelvis. All structural curves were considered and were distributed as follows: 142 thoracic (T), 70 thoracolumbar (TL), and 47 lumbar curves (L). Common 3D spino-pelvic and scoliosis parameters were collected such as: frontal Cobb; torsion index (TI); hypokyphosis/lordosis index (HI). Parameters were compared between each type of curvature and correlations were investigated between the 3 planes.

Results

Frontal Cobb was higher in all T (45 ± 19°) and TL (41 ± 15°) curves compared to L curves (35 ± 14°, p = 0.004). TI was higher in T curves when compared to TL and L curves (TI: 15 ± 8°, 9 ± 6°, 7 ± 5°, p < 0.001). HI was similar between curve types. T curves showed significant correlations between the 3 planes: Cobb vs. TI (r = 0.76), Cobb vs. HI (r = − 0.54) and HI vs. TI (r = − 0.42). The axial plane deformity was related to the frontal deformity and the type of curvature (adjusted-R2 = 0.6).

Conclusion

Beside showing the most severe deformity frontally and axially compared to TL and L curves, the T curves showed strong correlations between the 3 planes of the deformity. Moreover, this study showed that the axial plane deformity cannot be fully determined by the frontal and sagittal deformities, which highlights the importance of 3D assessment in the setting of AIS.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Kane WJ (1977) Scoliosis prevalence: a call for a statement of terms. Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-197707000-00006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Dubousset J, Cotrel Y (1991) Application technique of Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation for scoliosis deformities. Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199103000-00012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Courvoisier A, Drevelle X, Dubousset J et al (2013) Transverse plane 3D analysis of mild scoliosis. Eur Spine J 22:2427–2432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Skalli W, Vergari C, Ebermeyer E et al (2017) Early detection of progressive adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a severity index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:823–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kwan KYH, Cheung AKP, Koh HY et al (2021) Brace effectiveness is related to 3-dimensional plane parameters in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 103:37–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Fischer CR, Kim Y (2011) Selective fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a review of current operative strategy. Eur Spine J 20:1048–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Sullivan TB, Reighard FG, Osborn EJ et al (2017) Thoracic idiopathic scoliosis severity is highly correlated with 3D measures of thoracic kyphosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:e54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Adam CJ, Askin GN, Pearcy MJ (2008) Gravity-induced torque and intravertebral rotation in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:30–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Upasani VV, Tis J, Bastrom T et al (2007) Analysis of sagittal alignment in thoracic and thoracolumbar curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: how do these two curve types differ? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:1355–1359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hu P, Yu M, Liu X et al (2016) Analysis of the relationship between coronal and sagittal deformities in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 25:409–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Ni H, Zhu X, He S et al (2010) An increased kyphosis of the thoracolumbar junction is correlated to more axial vertebral rotation in thoracolumbar/lumbar adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1334–1338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Morrison DG, Chan A, Hill D et al (2015) Correlation between Cobb angle, spinous process angle (SPA) and apical vertebrae rotation (AVR) on posteroanterior radiographs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Eur Spine J 24:306–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Pizones J, Zúñiga L, Sánchez-Mariscal F et al (2016) Relationship between the different torsion-related thoracic deformity parameters of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-016-1762-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hong JY, Kim KW, Suh SW et al (2017) Effect of coronal scoliotic curvature on sagittal spinal shape. Clin Spine Surg 30:E418–E422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hayashi K, Upasani VV, Pawelek JB et al (2009) Three-dimensional analysis of thoracic apical sagittal alignment in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:792–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Faro FD, Marks MC, Pawelek J et al (2004) Evaluation of a functional position for lateral radiograph acquisition in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2284–2289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J et al (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:1169–1181

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Ilharreborde B, Jean S, Steffen S et al (2011) Angle measurement reproducibility using EOS three-dimensional reconstructions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by posterior instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1306–1313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Glaser DA, Doan J, Newton PO (2012) Comparison of 3-dimensional spinal reconstruction accuracy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1391–1397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Somoskeöy S, Tunyogi-Csapó M, Bogyó C et al (2012) Accuracy and reliability of coronal and sagittal spinal curvature data based on patient-specific three-dimensional models created by the EOS 2D/3D imaging system. Spine J 12:1052–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Rehm J, Germann T, Akbar M et al (2017) 3D-modeling of the spine using EOS imaging system: Inter-reader reproducibility and reliability. PLoS ONE 12:e0171258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Jiang F, Simões L, Ouellet J et al (2020) Accuracy of EOS imagining technology in comparison to computed tomography in the assessment of vertebral rotational orientation in instrumented spines in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000003739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Al-Aubaidi Z, Lebel D, Oudjhane K et al (2013) Three-dimensional imaging of the spine using the EOS system: is it reliable? A comparative study using computed tomography imaging. J Pediatr Orthop B 22:409–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Wang W, Zhu Z, Zhu F et al (2012) Different curve pattern and other radiographical characteristics in male and female patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1586–1592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Newton PO, Osborn EJ, Bastrom TP et al (2019) The 3D sagittal profile of thoracic versus lumbar major curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 7:60–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Dolan LA, Weinstein SL (2007) Surgical rates after observation and bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: an evidence-based review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Miyazaki M, Ishihara T, Abe T et al (2020) Analysis of reciprocal changes in upper cervical profiles after posterior spinal fusion with the simultaneous double rod rotation technique for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 106:1275–1279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Schlösser TP, Abelin K, Jelle G et al (2020) Comparison of different strategies on three—dimensional correction of AIS: which plane will suffer? Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06659-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by the research council of the University of Saint-Joseph in Beirut (Project FM300).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MK, CV, WS, AJB, JM, GK, KK, IG, AA: made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work. MK, CV, WS, AJB, JM, GK, KK, IG, AA: drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content. MK, CV, WS, AJB, JM, GK, KK, IG, AA: approved the version to be published. MK, CV, WS, AJB, JM, GK, KK, IG, AA: agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayman Assi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethics

This is an IRB approved study (University of Saint-Joseph-CEHDF742).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karam, M., Vergari, C., Skalli, W. et al. Assessment of the axial plane deformity in subjects with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and its relationship to the frontal and sagittal planes. Spine Deform (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-021-00443-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Scoliosis
  • 3D reconstruction
  • Axial plane
  • Frontal plane
  • Sagittal plane
  • Scoliosis surgery