Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The analysis of segmental mobility with different lumbar radiographs in symptomatic patients with a spondylolisthesis

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

Abstract

Purpose

Lumbar flexion–extension radiographs in standing position (SFE) are the most commonly used imaging method to evaluate segmental mobility. Many surgeons use SFE to disclose abnormal vertebral motion and base their decision for surgical fusion on its results. We tested the hypothesis that imaging in standing and recumbent position (SRP) reveals a higher sagittal translation (ST) and sagittal rotation (SR) in symptomatic patients than with SFE.

Materials and methods

We analysed images of 100 symptomatic patients with a low-grade spondylolisthesis that underwent surgical fusion. To determine the ST and SR in SRP, we compared the images taken in the recumbent position in the CT with images taken in the standing position during the routine plain radiography.

Results

The measurement of ST revealed an absolute value of 2.3 ± 1.5 mm in SFE and 4.0 ± 2.0 mm in SRP and differed significantly (p = 0.001). The analysis of the relative value showed an ST of 5.9 ± 3.9% in SFE and 7.8 ± 5.4% in SRP (p = 0.008). The assessment of ST in flexion and in a recumbent position (FRP) revealed the highest ST (4.6 ± 2.5 mm or 9.2 ± 5.7%). Comparison of SR showed the highest rotation in SFE (6.1° ± 3.8°), however, compared to SRP (5.4° ± 3.3°), it missed the level of significance (p = 0.051).

Conclusions

For evaluation of ST in symptomatic patients with spondylolisthesis SRP appears to be more suitable than SFE, while a pathological SR is better revealed in SFE. The analysis of SRP might offer a complementary method to detect or exclude pathological mobility in more cases.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pitkanen MT, Manninen HI, Lindgren KA, Sihvonen TA, Airaksinen O, Soimakallio S (2002) Segmental lumbar spine instability at flexion-extension radiography can be predicted by conventional radiography. Clin Radiol 57(7):632–639

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Guyer RD, McAfee PC, Banco RJ, Bitan FD, Cappuccino A, Geisler FH, Hochschuler SH, Holt RT, Jenis LG, Majd ME, Regan JJ, Tromanhauser SG, Wong DC, Blumenthal SL (2009) Prospective, randomized, multicenter food and drug administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. Spine J 9(5):374–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dupuis PR, Yong-Hing K, Cassidy JD, Kirkaldy-Willis WH (1985) Radiologic diagnosis of degenerative lumbar spinal instability. Spine 10(3):262–276 (Phila Pa 1976)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Farfan HF (1982) Instability of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 165:110–123

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Morgan FP, King T (1957) Primary instability of lumbar vertebrae as a common cause of low back pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 39(1):6–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kanemura A, Doita M, Kasahara K, Sumi M, Kurosaka M, Iguchi T (2009) The influence of sagittal instability factors on clinical lumbar spinal symptoms. J Spinal Disord Tech 22(7):479–485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Posner I, White AA, Edwards WT, Hayes WC (1982) A biomechanical analysis of the clinical stability of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. Spine 7(4):374–389 (Phila Pa 1976)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Shaffer WO, Spratt KF, Weinstein J, Lehmann TR, Goel V (1990) Volvo Award in clinical sciences. The consistency and accuracy of roentgenograms for measuring sagittal translation in the lumbar vertebral motion segment. An experimental model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15(8):741–750

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wood KB, Popp CA, Transfeldt EE, Geissele AE (1994) Radiographic evaluation of instability in spondylolisthesis. Spine 19(15):1697–1703 (Phila Pa 1976)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Luk KD, Chow DH, Holmes A (2003) Vertical instability in spondylolisthesis: a traction radiographic assessment technique and the principle of management. Spine 28(8):819–827 (Phila Pa 1976)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lowe RW, Hayes TD, Kaye J, Bagg RJ, Luekens CA (1976) Standing roentgenograms in spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 117:80–84

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Penning L, Blickman JR (1980) Instability in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a radiologic study of several concepts. Am J Roentgenol 134(2):293–301

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Thome C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O, Bazner H, Pockler-Schoniger C, Wohrle J, Schmiedek P (2005) Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 3(2):129–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Epstein NE (1998) Decompression in the surgical management of degenerative spondylolisthesis: advantages of a conservative approach in 290 patients. J Spinal Disord 11(2):116–122 Discussion 23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Leone A, Guglielmi G, Cassar-Pullicino VN, Bonomo L (2007) Lumbar intervertebral instability: a review. Radiology 245(1):62–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Leone A, Cassar-Pullicino VN, Guglielmi G, Bonomo L (2009) Degenerative lumbar intervertebral instability: what is it and how does imaging contribute? Skeletal Radiol 38(6):529–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nachemson AL, Schultz AB, Berkson MH (1979) Mechanical properties of human lumbar spine motion segments. Influence of age, sex, disc level, and degeneration. Spine 4(1):1–8 (Phila Pa 1976)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Friberg O (1987) Lumbar instability: a dynamic approach by traction-compression radiography. Spine 12(2):119–129 (Phila Pa 1976)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hayes MA, Howard TC, Gruel CR, Kopta JA (1989) Roentgenographic evaluation of lumbar spine flexion extension in asymptomatic individuals. Spine 14(3):327–331 (Phila Pa 1976)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pennal GF, Conn GS, McDonald G, Dale G, Garside H (1972) Motion studies of the lumbar spine: a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Br 54(3):442–452

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wiltse LL, Hutchinson RH (1964) Surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 35:116–135

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. McGregor AH, McCarthy ID, Hughes SP (1995) Motion characteristics of the lumbar spine in the normal population. Spine 20(22):2421–2428 (Phila Pa 1976)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Pearcy M, Portek I, Shepherd J (1985) The effect of low-back pain on lumbar spinal movements measured by three-dimensional X-ray analysis. Spine 10(2):150–153 (Phila Pa 1976)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Quinnell RC, Stockdale HR (1983) Flexion and extension radiography of the lumbar spine: a comparison with lumbar discography. Clin Radiol 34(4):405–411

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Panjabi M, White AA 3rd (1971) A mathematical approach for three-dimensional analysis of the mechanics of the spine. J Biomech 4(3):203–211

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We thank Mrs. Leah Hecker for editing the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Germany

    Mario Cabraja, Ellafi Mohamed, Daniel Koeppen & Stefan Kroppenstedt

Authors
  1. Mario Cabraja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ellafi Mohamed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Koeppen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefan Kroppenstedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Cabraja.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cabraja, M., Mohamed, E., Koeppen, D. et al. The analysis of segmental mobility with different lumbar radiographs in symptomatic patients with a spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 21, 256–261 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1870-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1870-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation