Advertisement

Cervical Alignment and Sagittal Balance

  • Alexander Tuchman
  • Dominque M. O. Higgins
Chapter

Abstract

In patients with cervical spine pathologies, surgical consideration of alignment and balance is critical for obtaining optimal outcomes [1]. Preoperative evaluation of these patients must therefore take into account baseline deformity, as well as potential risk of progression. As such, reliable methods of describing cervical alignment and balance and awareness of their surgical implications are of the utmost importance. Here, we describe standard parameters utilized in classification of cervical spine alignment, deformity, and their key clinical associations.

Keywords

Cervical alignment Sagittal balance Spinal alignment Spondylolisthesis Scoliosis Lordosis Horizontal gaze Chin-brow vertical angle Thoracolumbar deformity 

References

  1. 1.
    Hann S, et al. An algorithmic strategy for selecting a surgical approach in cervical deformity correction. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(5):E5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scheer JK, et al. Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: a review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(2):141–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuntz CT, et al. Neutral upright sagittal spinal alignment from the occiput to the pelvis in asymptomatic adults: a review and resynthesis of the literature. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6(2):104–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ames CP, et al. Cervical radiographical alignment: comprehensive assessment techniques and potential importance in cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S149–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ames CP, et al. A standardized nomenclature for cervical spine soft-tissue release and osteotomy for deformity correction: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(3):269–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hardacker JW, et al. Radiographic standing cervical segmental alignment in adult volunteers without neck symptoms. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(13):1472–1480; discussion 1480.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grob D, et al. The association between cervical spine curvature and neck pain. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(5):669–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Le Huec JC, et al. Sagittal parameters of global cervical balance using EOS imaging: normative values from a prospective cohort of asymptomatic volunteers. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(1):63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shimizu K, et al. Spinal kyphosis causes demyelination and neuronal loss in the spinal cord: a new model of kyphotic deformity using juvenile Japanese small game fowls. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(21):2388–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jarzem PF, et al. Spinal cord tissue pressure during spinal cord distraction in dogs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(8 Suppl):S227–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oshima Y, Seichi A, Takeshita K, Chikuda H, Ono T, Baba S, Morii J, Oka H, Kawaguchi H, Nakamura K, Tanaka S. Natural course and prognostic factors in patients with mild cervical spondylotic myelopathy with increased signal intensity on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(22):1909–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shamji MF, et al. The Association of Cervical Spine Alignment with neurologic recovery in a prospective cohort of patients with surgical myelopathy: analysis of a series of 124 cases. World Neurosurg. 2016;86:112–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guerin P, et al. Sagittal alignment after single cervical disc arthroplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25(1):10–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim KT, et al. Surgical treatment of “chin-on-pubis” deformity in a patient with ankylosing spondylitis: a case report of consecutive cervical, thoracic, and lumbar corrective osteotomies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(16):E1017–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suk KS, et al. Significance of chin-brow vertical angle in correction of kyphotic deformity of ankylosing spondylitis patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(17):2001–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lafage R, et al. Natural head posture in the setting of sagittal spinal deformity: validation of chin-brow vertical angle, slope of line of sight, and McGregor's slope with health-related quality of life. Neurosurgery. 2016;79(1):108–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deviren V, Scheer JK, Ames CP. Technique of cervicothoracic junction pedicle subtraction osteotomy for cervical sagittal imbalance: report of 11 cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15(2):174–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miyata M, et al. O-C2 angle as a predictor of dyspnea and/or dysphagia after occipitocervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(2):184–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morishima N, et al. The influences of halo-vest fixation and cervical hyperextension on swallowing in healthy volunteers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(7):E179–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yoshida M, et al. Upper-airway obstruction after short posterior occipitocervical fusion in a flexed position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(8):E267–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garfin SR, Botte MJ, Waters RL, Nickel VL. Complications in the use of the halo fixation device. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68(3):320–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Izeki M, et al. Reduction of atlantoaxial subluxation causes airway stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(9):E513–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaneyama S, et al. Dysphagia after Occipitothoracic fusion is caused by direct compression of oropharyngeal space due to anterior protrusion of mid-cervical spine. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(7):314–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaneyama S, et al. The prediction and prevention of dysphagia after Occipitospinal fusion by use of the S-line (swallowing line). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(10):718–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bagley CA, et al. Assuring optimal physiologic craniocervical alignment and avoidance of swallowing-related complications after occipitocervical fusion by preoperative halo vest placement. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22(3):170–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Matsuyama Y, et al. Long-term results of occipitothoracic fusion surgery in RA patients with destruction of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18(Suppl):S101–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Iyer S, et al. Impact of cervical sagittal alignment parameters on neck disability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(5):371–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith JS, et al. Association of myelopathy scores with cervical sagittal balance and normalized spinal cord volume: analysis of 56 preoperative cases from the AOSpine North America myelopathy study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S161–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tang JA, et al. The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery. 2012;71(3):662–669; discussion 669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hyun SJ, et al. Relationship between T1 slope and cervical alignment following multilevel posterior cervical fusion surgery: impact of T1 slope minus cervical lordosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(7):E396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee JS, et al. Relationship between cervical sagittal alignment and quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(6):1199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim TH, et al. T1 slope as a predictor of kyphotic alignment change after laminoplasty in patients with cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(16):E992–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weng C, et al. Influence of T1 slope on the cervical sagittal balance in degenerative cervical spine: an analysis using kinematic MRI. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(3):185–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Protopsaltis TS. et al. T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS-CL), the cervical analog of PI-LL defines cervical sagittal deformity in patients undergoing thoracolumbar osteotomy. Abstract presented at the 2013 Annual meeting of the Cervical Spine Research Society in Los Angeles; 2013.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smith JS, et al. Prevalence and type of cervical deformity among 470 adults with thoracolumbar deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(17):E1001–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Oh T, et al. Cervical compensatory alignment changes following correction of adult thoracic deformity: a multicenter experience in 57 patients with a 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22(6):658–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smith JS, et al. Spontaneous improvement of cervical alignment after correction of global sagittal balance following pedicle subtraction osteotomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(4):300–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Knott PT, et al. The use of the T1 sagittal angle in predicting overall sagittal balance of the spine. Spine J. 2010;10(11):994–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Klineberg EO, et al. Can measurements on cervical radiographs predict concurrent thoracolumbar deformity and provide a threshold for acquiring full-length spine radiographs? Spine J. 2015;15(10):S146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ghobrial GM, et al. Changes in cervical alignment after multilevel Schwab grade II thoracolumbar osteotomies for adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(2):E82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ames CP, et al. Reliability assessment of a novel cervical spine deformity classification system. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23(6):673–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurological SurgeryColumbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations