The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Volume 87, Issue 2

Scientific Articles | February 01, 2005

Radiographic Analysis of the Sagittal Alignment and Balance of the Spine in Asymptomatic Subjects

Raphaël Vialle, MD¹; Nicolas Levassor, MD¹; Ludovic Rillardon, MD¹; Alexandre Templier, MD²; Wafa Skalli, MD²; Pierre Guigui, MD¹

¹ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hôpital Beaujon, 100 Boulevard de Général Leclerc, F-92110 Clichy, France. E-mail address for R. Vialle: ravialle@noos.fr
² Department of Biomechanics, ENSAM-PARIS, 151 Boulevard de L'Hôpital, F-75013 Paris, France

View Disclosures and Other Information

The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hôpital Beaujon, Clichy, and the Department of Biomechanics, ENSAM-PARIS, Paris, France

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2005 Feb 01;87(2):260-267. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02043

5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Article

Comments (0)

text A A A

Abstract

Background: There is an increasing recognition of the clinical importance of the sagittal plane alignment of the spine. A prospective study of several radiographic parameters of the sagittal profile of the spine was conducted to determine the physiological values of these parameters, to calculate the variations of these parameters according to epidemiological and morphological data, and to study the relationships among all of these parameters.

Methods: Sagittal radiographs of the head, spine, and pelvis of 300 asymptomatic volunteers, made with the subject standing, were evaluated. The following parameters were measured: lumbar lordosis, thoracic kyphosis, T9 sagittal offset, sacral slope, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, intervertebral angulation, and vertebral wedging angle from T9 to S1. The radiographs were digitized, and all measurements were performed with use of a software program. Two different analyses, a descriptive analysis characterizing these parameters and a multivariate analysis, were performed in order to study the relationships among all of them.

Results: The mean values (and standard deviations) were 60° ± 10° for maximum lumbar lordosis, 41° ± 8.4° for sacral slope, 13° ± 6° for pelvic tilt, 55° ± 10.6° for pelvic incidence, and 10.3° ± 3.1° for T9 sagittal offset. A strong correlation was found between the sacral slope and the pelvic incidence (r = 0.8); between maximum lumbar lordosis and sacral slope (r = 0.86); between pelvic incidence and pelvic tilt (r = 0.66); between maximum lumbar lordosis and pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and maximum thoracic kyphosis (r = 0.9); and, finally, between pelvic incidence and T9 sagittal offset, sacral slope, pelvic tilt, maximum lumbar lordosis, and thoracic kyphosis (r = 0.98). The T9 sagittal offset, reflecting the sagittal balance of the spine, was dependent on three separate factors: a linear combination of the pelvic incidence, maximum lumbar lordosis, and sacral slope; the pelvic tilt; and the thoracic kyphosis.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: This description of the physiological spinal sagittal balance should serve as a baseline in the evaluation of pathological conditions associated with abnormal angular parameter values. Before a patient with spinal sagittal imbalance is treated, the reciprocal balance between various spinal angular parameters needs to be taken into account. The correlations between angular parameters may also be useful in calculating the corrections to be obtained during treatment.

Figures in this Article

There has been an increasing recognition of the importance of the sagittal plane contour in the normal function of the spine and in its various disease states^1-15. The reciprocal curves of cervical lordosis, thoracic kyphosis, and lumbar lordosis allow efficient absorption of the loads applied to the spinal column and increase the efficiency of the spinal musculature. These curves, especially lumbar lordosis, play a role in the maintenance of an efficient upright posture. Many authors have reported the negative effects of a reduced lumbar lordosis with fixed sagittal imbalance after spinal instrumentation, also known as a flat-back deformity^{1,2,9,10,16,17}. Therefore, in the treatment of complex spinal deformities such as scoliosis or kyphosis, it is important to restore both frontal and sagittal balance. The most important radiographic parameters of the sagittal balance of the spine in upright posture are well defined^{1,10,15,18,19}, but very few reports present the normal physiological values. Moreover, it is well established that the physiological upright standing posture can be reached in a different way for each person with a unique and individual pattern of spinopelvic balance and sagittal alignment¹. These patterns can be affected by numerous variables, such as the age, gender, weight, and, especially, the pelvic morphology and orientation of the patient. Thus, it is necessary to study the normative values and relationships among all of the parameters of spinopelvic balance in asymptomatic patients.

The aim of this study was to determine the radiographic parameters of the sagittal profile of the spine in a volunteer cohort. We determined the variations of these parameters according to epidemiological and morphological criteria and studied the relationships among all of these parameters.

Materials and Methods

Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

Three hundred subjects agreed to participate in the study. All were volunteers and met the following inclusion criteria: an age between twenty and seventy years, no history of a spinal disorder or spinal surgery, and no radiographic abnormality detected prior to or during the study. Hip, knee, and ankle abnormalities were ruled out by clinical examination. All volunteers provided informed consent. The study population consisted of 300 volunteers (110 women and 190 men), with a mean age of thirty-five years (range, twenty to seventy years). The epidemiological and morphological characteristics of this cohort were obtained from the following data: age, gender, weight, and height. The body mass index was calculated as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters.

For each patient, one lateral radiograph of the spine was made with use of a vertical 30 × 90-cm film with a constant distance between the subject and the radiographic source. The subject stood in a comfortable position, with the knees fully extended and the arms flexed forward to 45° and resting on supports. The radiograph was centered on the twelfth thoracic vertebra and was made during inhalation.

The radiographs were digitized, and all measurements were performed by means of SpineView software (SurgiView, Paris, France), which was validated in a previous study²⁰. The end-plate lines used for measurements were identified by three of the authors (N.L., L.R., and P.G.).

On each lateral radiograph, three pelvic parameters were measured (Fig. 1). The sacral slope is the angle between the horizontal line and the cranial sacral end-plate tangent. The pelvic tilt is the angle between the vertical line and the line joining the middle of the sacral plate and the center of the bicoxofemoral axis (the line between the geometric center of both femoral heads). According to Legaye et al.¹⁰, the pelvic incidence is the key anatomical parameter for determining the spinal balance. The pelvic incidence is the angle between the line perpendicular to the middle of the cranial sacral end plate and the line joining the middle of the cranial sacral end plate to the center of the bicoxofemoral axis.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 1: Methods of measurement of pelvic and spinal parameters.

On each lateral radiograph, three spinal parameters were measured (Fig. 2). The lumbar lordosis is the angle between the cranial end plate of L1 and the caudal end plate of L5. The thoracic kyphosis is the angle between the cranial end plate of T4 and the caudal end plate of T12. The T9 sagittal offset is the angle between the vertical plumb line and the line between the center of the vertebral body of T9 and the center of the bicoxofemoral axis. In addition, the T1 sagittal offset is the angle between the vertical plumb line and the line between the center of the vertebral body of T1 and the center of the bicoxofemoral axis. Vertebral wedging and the intervertebral angles were also measured for all vertebral levels between T9 and L5. By summing the intervertebral angles and the vertebral wedging, we obtained the values of the segmental angulations from T9 to S1. Furthermore, we noted the so-called transitional vertebra located at the junction of the lumbar lordosis and the thoracic kyphosis, in order to measure the maximum lordosis (the angle between the cranial end plate of the transitional vertebra and the cranial end plate of S1) and the maximum kyphosis (the angle between the cranial end plate of T4 and the caudal end plate of the transitional vertebra).

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 2: Methods of measurement of spinal parameters.

The data were analyzed with use of SPSS software (SPSS, Chicago, Illinois). Our analysis was conducted in four steps. First, we performed a descriptive analysis of the epidemiological and morphological parameters of the cohort. Second, we determined the mean value, standard deviation, standard error, and range of the angular parameters previously defined. Third, we investigated the relationship between the epidemiological and morphological parameters using simple and multivariate linear regression analysis and the unpaired t test. Finally, we studied the variations of all of the parameters with respect to each other. In order to perform this final analysis, our study was based on three hypotheses formulated by During et al.¹, Legaye et al.¹⁰, and Duval-Beaupère et al.^21,22. First, the pelvic incidence is a morphological parameter for which the value is fixed and invariable for each subject. Second, sagittal balance is obtained because of the adaptation of other parameters to this fixed parameter. Third, the T9 sagittal offset is an indicator of the position of the center of gravity of the part of the body above the femoral heads and therefore of the sagittal balance of the spine. Using simple and multivariate linear regression and principal components analysis, we attempted to describe the relationships between different parameters and the pelvic incidence and to determine how the T9 sagittal offset varied with regard to all of these parameters.

Results

Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

The main characteristics of the population and the values of the angular parameters are reported in Table I. The distribution of each angular parameter was normal. The transitional vertebra, which is the junction between the thoracic kyphosis and the lumbar lordosis, was T11 in 12.6% of the spines, T12 in 23.7% of the spines, L1 in 37.7% of the spines, and L2 in 26% of the spines. By summing up the intervertebral angles and the vertebral wedging, we obtained the values of the segmental angulations from T9 to S1 (Table II).

View Larger

TABLE I Clinical and Radiographic Baseline Features^* (N = 300)

	Mean (deg)	Range (deg)	Standard Deviation	Standard Error	95% Confidence Interval (deg)
Age	35.40	20 to 70	12	0.70	33.99 to 36.75
Body mass index	23.50	15 to 35	3	0.20	23.19 to 23.88
Thoracic T4-T12 kyphosis	40.60	0 to 69	10	0.60	39.49 to 41.83
Maximum thoracic kyphosis	41.20	7 to 66	10	0.60	40.09 to 42.38
Lumbar L1-L5 lordosis	-43	-69 to -13.6	11.2	0.65	-44.40 to -41.86
Maximum lumbar lordosis	-60.2	-89 to -30	10.3	0.60	-61.42 to -59.08
T9 sagittal offset	-10.35	-19.8 to -1.7	3	0.18	-10.70 to -10.00
T1 sagittal offset	-1.35	-9.16 to 7.12	2.7	0.17	-1.65 to -1.04
Sacral slope	41.2	17 to 63	8.4	0.50	40.91 to 42.81
Pelvic incidence	54.70	33 to 82	10.6	0.64	53.46 to 55.88
Pelvic tilt	13.2	-4.5 to 27	6.1	0.37	12.52 to 13.90

Positive values indicate kyphosis, and negative values indicate lordosis.

Add to My JBJS

TABLE I Clinical and Radiographic Baseline Features^* (N = 300)

	Mean (deg)	Range (deg)	Standard Deviation	Standard Error	95% Confidence Interval (deg)
Age	35.40	20 to 70	12	0.70	33.99 to 36.75
Body mass index	23.50	15 to 35	3	0.20	23.19 to 23.88
Thoracic T4-T12 kyphosis	40.60	0 to 69	10	0.60	39.49 to 41.83
Maximum thoracic kyphosis	41.20	7 to 66	10	0.60	40.09 to 42.38
Lumbar L1-L5 lordosis	-43	-69 to -13.6	11.2	0.65	-44.40 to -41.86
Maximum lumbar lordosis	-60.2	-89 to -30	10.3	0.60	-61.42 to -59.08
T9 sagittal offset	-10.35	-19.8 to -1.7	3	0.18	-10.70 to -10.00
T1 sagittal offset	-1.35	-9.16 to 7.12	2.7	0.17	-1.65 to -1.04
Sacral slope	41.2	17 to 63	8.4	0.50	40.91 to 42.81
Pelvic incidence	54.70	33 to 82	10.6	0.64	53.46 to 55.88
Pelvic tilt	13.2	-4.5 to 27	6.1	0.37	12.52 to 13.90

Positive values indicate kyphosis, and negative values indicate lordosis.

View Larger

TABLE II Reciprocal Angular Measurements from T9 to S1^*

	S1	L5	L4	L3	L2	L1	T12	T11	T10	T9
S1	0
	(0 to 0)
L5	-23.3	-8
	(-24 to -22.5)	(-8.5 to -7.5)
L4	-40	-24.6	-2.6
	(-40.7 to -39)	(-25 to -24)	(-3 to -2.2)
L3	-50.2	-34.9	-13	-0.6
	(-51.2 to -49.3)	(-35.8 to -34)	(-13.6 to -12.4)	(-0.9 to -0.3)
L2	-57	-41.5	-19.50	-7.2	1.2
	(-58 to -55.7)	(-42.6 to -40)	(-20.5 to -19)	(-7.7 to -6.6)	(0.8 to 1.5)
L1	-58.5	-43	-21	-8.8	-0.45	3.8
	(-60 to -57)	(-44.4 to -42)	(-22.3 to -20.2)	(-9.7 to -8)	(-1 to 0)	(3.5 to 4)
T12	-57.2	-42	-20	-7.5	0.8	5.1	4.5
	(-58.5 to -56)	(-43 to -40)	(-21 to -19)	(-8.5 to -6.6)	(0 to 1.6)	(4.5 to 5.6)	(4.1 to 4.8)
T11	-54	-38.8	-17	-4.5	4	8.2	7.6	4.8
	(-55.5 to -53)	(-40 to -37)	(-18 to -16)	(-5.6 to -3.5)	(3 to 5)	(7.4 to 9)	(7 to 8)	(4.5 to 5)
T10	-52	-36.5	-14.5	-2.2	6.20	10.50	10	7	3
	(-52 to -54)	(-38 to -35)	(-16 to -13)	(-31 to -1)	(5 to 7)	(10 to 11)	(9 to 10.5)	(6.5 to 7.5)	(2.6 to 3.2)
T9	-49	-33.7	-11.8	0.6	9	13.3	12.7	10	5.7	3.5
	(-50 to -48)	(-35 to -32)	(-13 to -10)	(-0.5 to 1.7)	(8 to 10)	(12.5 to 14)	(12 to 13)	(9 to 10.5)	(5.3 to 6.2)	(3 to 3.7)

The values are given as the mean, with the 5% prediction limits in parentheses. Data in boldface are the segmental angular values. The data can be used to assess, for example, local deformity and to evaluate whether surgical correction is needed following trauma with spinal fracture and segmental kyphosis.

Add to My JBJS

TABLE II Reciprocal Angular Measurements from T9 to S1^*

	S1	L5	L4	L3	L2	L1	T12	T11	T10	T9
S1	0
	(0 to 0)
L5	-23.3	-8
	(-24 to -22.5)	(-8.5 to -7.5)
L4	-40	-24.6	-2.6
	(-40.7 to -39)	(-25 to -24)	(-3 to -2.2)
L3	-50.2	-34.9	-13	-0.6
	(-51.2 to -49.3)	(-35.8 to -34)	(-13.6 to -12.4)	(-0.9 to -0.3)
L2	-57	-41.5	-19.50	-7.2	1.2
	(-58 to -55.7)	(-42.6 to -40)	(-20.5 to -19)	(-7.7 to -6.6)	(0.8 to 1.5)
L1	-58.5	-43	-21	-8.8	-0.45	3.8
	(-60 to -57)	(-44.4 to -42)	(-22.3 to -20.2)	(-9.7 to -8)	(-1 to 0)	(3.5 to 4)
T12	-57.2	-42	-20	-7.5	0.8	5.1	4.5
	(-58.5 to -56)	(-43 to -40)	(-21 to -19)	(-8.5 to -6.6)	(0 to 1.6)	(4.5 to 5.6)	(4.1 to 4.8)
T11	-54	-38.8	-17	-4.5	4	8.2	7.6	4.8
	(-55.5 to -53)	(-40 to -37)	(-18 to -16)	(-5.6 to -3.5)	(3 to 5)	(7.4 to 9)	(7 to 8)	(4.5 to 5)
T10	-52	-36.5	-14.5	-2.2	6.20	10.50	10	7	3
	(-52 to -54)	(-38 to -35)	(-16 to -13)	(-31 to -1)	(5 to 7)	(10 to 11)	(9 to 10.5)	(6.5 to 7.5)	(2.6 to 3.2)
T9	-49	-33.7	-11.8	0.6	9	13.3	12.7	10	5.7	3.5
	(-50 to -48)	(-35 to -32)	(-13 to -10)	(-0.5 to 1.7)	(8 to 10)	(12.5 to 14)	(12 to 13)	(9 to 10.5)	(5.3 to 6.2)	(3 to 3.7)

The distributions of the lumbar lordosis, the sacral slope, and the pelvic incidence with regard to gender were not normal. The mean values for women were higher than those obtained for men. No significant difference was detected, on the basis of the numbers available, for the T9 sagittal offset or for the pelvic tilt with regard to gender (Table III). No significant correlation was found, on the basis of the numbers, between the body mass index and any of the angular parameters. No significant correlation was found, on the basis of the numbers, between the subject age and the T9 sagittal offset, the sacral slope, and the pelvic tilt. We found small correlations between age and the following parameters: thoracic kyphosis (r = 0.2), pelvic incidence (r = 0.14), and lumbar lordosis (r = 0.14). When gender was considered in the multivariate analysis, age no longer influenced the thoracic kyphosis, the pelvic incidence, or the lumbar lordosis.

View Larger

TABLE III Pelvic and Spinal Parameters According to Gender Group

	Female Subjects^*	Male Subjects^*	P Value†
Thoracic T4-T12 kyphosis	39 ± 10	41.7 ± 10	NS
Maximum thoracic kyphosis	40 ± 10	42.4 ± 9.8	NS
Lumbar L1-L5 lordosis	-46.2 ± 11	-41.4 ± 11	<0.001
Maximum lumbar lordosis	-62 ± 10	-59.2 ± 10.12	<0.001
T9 sagittal offset	-10.5 ± 3	-10.2 ± 3.1	NS
T1 sagittal offset	-2 ± 2.7	-1 ± 2.7	<0.05
Sacral slope	43.2 ± 8.4	41 ± 8.5	<0.01
Pelvic incidence	56 ± 10	53 ± 10.6	<0.05
Pelvic tilt	13.6 ± 6	13 ± 6	NS

^*The values are given as the mean and the standard deviation. †The differences between the female and male subjects were compared with the unpaired t test. NS = not significant.

Add to My JBJS

TABLE III Pelvic and Spinal Parameters According to Gender Group

	Female Subjects^*	Male Subjects^*	P Value†
Thoracic T4-T12 kyphosis	39 ± 10	41.7 ± 10	NS
Maximum thoracic kyphosis	40 ± 10	42.4 ± 9.8	NS
Lumbar L1-L5 lordosis	-46.2 ± 11	-41.4 ± 11	<0.001
Maximum lumbar lordosis	-62 ± 10	-59.2 ± 10.12	<0.001
T9 sagittal offset	-10.5 ± 3	-10.2 ± 3.1	NS
T1 sagittal offset	-2 ± 2.7	-1 ± 2.7	<0.05
Sacral slope	43.2 ± 8.4	41 ± 8.5	<0.01
Pelvic incidence	56 ± 10	53 ± 10.6	<0.05
Pelvic tilt	13.6 ± 6	13 ± 6	NS

^*The values are given as the mean and the standard deviation. †The differences between the female and male subjects were compared with the unpaired t test. NS = not significant.

We observed a very strong correlation between the maximum thoracic kyphosis and the T9 sagittal offset, between the maximum lumbar lordosis and the sacral slope (Fig. 3), between the maximum lumbar lordosis and the pelvic incidence, between the sacral slope and the pelvic incidence, and between the pelvic tilt and the pelvic incidence. The correlation matrix among all of the angular parameters is shown in Table IV. Several simple or multiple regression models were then established (Table V). Principal components analysis indicated that 90% of the variation of all of the parameters considered could be explained by three uncorrelated new variables. The first variable was the pelvic incidence, the maximum lumbar lordosis, and the sacral slope; the second one was the thoracic kyphosis; and the third one was the pelvic tilt. A multivariate regression on principal components showed a very good correlation (r = 0.8, R² = 0.7) between the T9 sagittal offset and the set of the three new variables.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 3: Correlation between maximum lumbar lordosis and sacral slope for the 300 volunteers.

View Larger

TABLE IV Matrix of Correlations Among the Main Spinal and Pelvic Parameters^*

	Thoracic T4-T12 Kyphosis	Maximum Thoracic Kyphosis	Lumbar L1-L5 Lordosis	Maximum Lumbar Lordosis	T9 Sagittal Offset	T1 Sagittal Offset	Sacral Slope	Pelvic Incidence	Pelvic Tilt
Thoracic T4-T12 kyphosis	1
Maximum thoracic kyphosis	0.95	1
Lumbar L1-L5 lordosis	-0.26	-0.18	1
Maximum lumbar lordosis	-0.35	-0.31	0.81	1
T9 sagittal offset	-0.44	-0.46	-0.1	-0.1	1
T1 sagittal offset	-0.14	-0.13	0.04	-0.1	0.7	1
Sacral slope	0.06	-0.18	-0.76	-0.86	0.23	-0.01	1
Pelvic incidence	-0.04	-0.1	0.68	-0.69	-0.01	0.12	0.81	1
Pelvic tilt	-0.11	-0.12	-0.24	-0.26	-0.34	-0.01	0.13	0.66	1

R values after the Pearson test.

Add to My JBJS

TABLE IV Matrix of Correlations Among the Main Spinal and Pelvic Parameters^*

	Thoracic T4-T12 Kyphosis	Maximum Thoracic Kyphosis	Lumbar L1-L5 Lordosis	Maximum Lumbar Lordosis	T9 Sagittal Offset	T1 Sagittal Offset	Sacral Slope	Pelvic Incidence	Pelvic Tilt
Thoracic T4-T12 kyphosis	1
Maximum thoracic kyphosis	0.95	1
Lumbar L1-L5 lordosis	-0.26	-0.18	1
Maximum lumbar lordosis	-0.35	-0.31	0.81	1
T9 sagittal offset	-0.44	-0.46	-0.1	-0.1	1
T1 sagittal offset	-0.14	-0.13	0.04	-0.1	0.7	1
Sacral slope	0.06	-0.18	-0.76	-0.86	0.23	-0.01	1
Pelvic incidence	-0.04	-0.1	0.68	-0.69	-0.01	0.12	0.81	1
Pelvic tilt	-0.11	-0.12	-0.24	-0.26	-0.34	-0.01	0.13	0.66	1

R values after the Pearson test.

View Larger

TABLE V Simple and Multivariate Linear Correlations Between the Main Spinal and Pelvic Parameters^*

Linear Regression Models	r	R²	Beta Coefficient Standard Error
SS = 7.3 + 0.63 PI	0.80	0.66	Intercept: 1.5
			Pelvic incidence: 0.03
MLL = -16 - 1.06 SS	0.86	0.74	Intercept: 1.6
			Sacral slope: 0.04
PT = -7 + 0.37 PI	0.66	0.44	Intercept: 1.5
			Pelvic incidence: 0.03
MLL = -2.72 - 1.1 PI + 1.1 PT - 0.31 MTK	0.9	0.8	Intercept: 1.8
			Pelvic incidence: 0.04
			Pelvic tilt: 0.06
			Maximum thoracic kyphosis: 0.03
PI = 2.9 + 0.12 T9SO + 0.82 SS + 1.02 PT - 0.1 MLL - 0.032 MTK	0.98	0.97	Intercept: 0.8
			T9 sagittal offset: 0.060
			Pelvic tilt: 0.04
			Maximum thoracic kyphosis: 0.015
			Sacral slope: 0.04
			Maximum lumbar lordosis: 0.032

These linear regression models describe the reciprocal relationship between the sacral slope, the lumbar lordosis, the pelvic tilt, and the pelvic incidence and other spinopelvic parameters through mathematical equations. TK = thoracic T4-T12 kyphosis, MTK = maximum thoracic kyphosis, LL = lumbar L1-L5 lordosis, MLL = maximum lumbar lordosis, T9SO = T9 sagittal offset, T1SO = T1 sagittal offset, SS = sacral slope, PI = pelvic incidence, and PT = pelvic tilt.

Add to My JBJS

TABLE V Simple and Multivariate Linear Correlations Between the Main Spinal and Pelvic Parameters^*

Linear Regression Models	r	R²	Beta Coefficient Standard Error
SS = 7.3 + 0.63 PI	0.80	0.66	Intercept: 1.5
			Pelvic incidence: 0.03
MLL = -16 - 1.06 SS	0.86	0.74	Intercept: 1.6
			Sacral slope: 0.04
PT = -7 + 0.37 PI	0.66	0.44	Intercept: 1.5
			Pelvic incidence: 0.03
MLL = -2.72 - 1.1 PI + 1.1 PT - 0.31 MTK	0.9	0.8	Intercept: 1.8
			Pelvic incidence: 0.04
			Pelvic tilt: 0.06
			Maximum thoracic kyphosis: 0.03
PI = 2.9 + 0.12 T9SO + 0.82 SS + 1.02 PT - 0.1 MLL - 0.032 MTK	0.98	0.97	Intercept: 0.8
			T9 sagittal offset: 0.060
			Pelvic tilt: 0.04
			Maximum thoracic kyphosis: 0.015
			Sacral slope: 0.04
			Maximum lumbar lordosis: 0.032

Discussion

Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

The current study yields a physiological standard for several angular pelvic and spinal parameters that describe spinal balance, measured in a cohort of 300 asymptomatic adult volunteers. Many authors have conducted studies with similar objectives^{1,3-8,10,15,17,23-27}. The measurements of various parameters taken into account in these previous studies were facilitated by the use of data-processing software. In the current study, we used the SpineView software package, which enables a rapid and precise measurement of all angular parameters on digitized radiographs. In a previous study²⁰, we showed that the intraobserver and interobserver reliability is very high and that the results obtained by the numerical process are similar to those obtained by manual measurement.

We think that it is important to make radiographs in a standardized fashion. According to Vedantam et al.²⁸, positioning the arms at 90° rather than 30° resulted in a negative shift of the sagittal vertical axis. According to Marks et al.²⁹, shoulder flexion of 45° is the best position to use when a lateral radiograph is made, in order to repeatedly measure the sagittal vertical axis. We believe that it is possible to use these positions in daily practice for the evaluation and treatment of spinal disorders affecting sagittal balance.

Because of the large number of patients in this study, we were able to provide physiological values for the segmental angulations from T9 to S1. We consider these values important in the management of spinal trauma. In a study on the long-term follow-up after treatment of lumbar or thoracolumbar fractures³⁰, the authors stressed the importance of obtaining anatomic realignment in the sagittal plane from a functional point of view. According to that study, the parameter called "traumatic regional angulation" is dependent on the regional kyphosis and on the physiological angulation of the considered segment. The values obtained in the current study should be useful in establishing goals and planning an optimal therapeutic course.

The mean values for lumbar lordosis and sacral slope were different between women and men. Gelb et al.²⁴, Legaye et al.¹⁰, and Korovessis et al.^7,8 came to the same conclusion. On the contrary, lumbar lordosis as well as thoracic kyphosis were independent of gender in studies on fifty adult volunteers by Jackson et al.^3-6. The variations in lumbar lordosis and sacral slope observed in those studies may be explained by a pelvic incidence that was slightly higher in women than in men.

Providing correct sagittal balance by surgical correction of a spinal deformity is of paramount importance. In the short term, it ensures a good position of the fused segment with regard to the gravity plumb line, allowing the best conditions for fusion. In the long term, good sagittal balance facilitates preservation of the adjacent levels¹⁶. During et al.¹ showed that there is a relationship between the pelvic inclination angle and the sacral slope, between the sacral slope and the lumbar lordosis, and between the pelvisacral angle and the pelvic inclination angle. Legaye et al.¹⁰ defined the spatial position of the pelvis by means of the pelvic incidence and the pelvic tilt. In a cohort of thirty-eight volunteers, they demonstrated an interdependence between a complete set of parameters describing the spinal sagittal balance. This interdependence was directly linked to the pelvic incidence, which influences, by means of the sacral slope, the "ideal" lumbar lordosis allowing the maintenance of an efficient standing position. Statistical analysis (principal components analysis) of the data in the present study also showed that a well-balanced position is obtained by means of three uncorrelated factors: the pelvic incidence, the sacral slope, and the lumbar lordosis. This finding confirms the conclusions of During et al.¹. Within this group of parameters, the pelvic incidence has a predominant role, since its value is not supposed to vary in an individual. Furthermore, the sacral slope also influences the lumbar lordosis.

The example in Figure 4 illustrates the importance of sagittal balance with respect to the surgical treatment of spinal disorders. The postoperative lateral radiograph of a patient with fixed sagittal imbalance after a posterolateral arthrodesis for the treatment of low-back pain shows that the lumbar lordosis was not adequately reestablished. The pelvic incidence was 55°, and the sacral slope was 20° instead of its theoretical value, which we determined was 41°. The lumbar lordosis was 30° instead of its theoretical value, which should have been 60°. The lateral radiograph (Fig. 4, A), made five years after surgery, shows an L3-L4 pseudarthrosis associated with degenerative spondylolisthesis. We believe that this complication was secondary to the fixed sagittal imbalance created by the first surgical procedure. The main objective of the subsequent operation was to restore the lumbar lordosis and the sacral slope in order to adapt them to the pelvic incidence. This goal was partially fulfilled by an L4 posterior wedge osteotomy (Fig. 4, B). The postoperative lumbar lordosis was 54°. In the case of this patient, we believe that obtaining a better sagittal balance improved the likelihood of ultimately achieving a solid fusion. ?

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 4: Long-term follow-up after lumbosacral arthrodesis for the treatment of low-back pain in a sixty-two-year-old patient. A: A lateral radiograph, made five years after the initial surgery, demonstrates an L3-L4 pseudarthrosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. B: A posterior wedge osteotomy aimed at restoring an adequate lordosis and sagittal alignment was performed.

References

Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

During J, Goudfrooij H, Keessen W, Beeker TW, Crowe A. Toward standards for posture. Postural characteristics of the lower back system in normal and pathologic conditions. Spine.1985;10: 83-7.1083 1985 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Farcy JP, Schwab FJ. Management of flatback and related kyphotic decompensation syndromes. Spine.1997;22: 2452-7.222452 1997 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Jackson RP, Hales C. Congruent spinopelvic alignment on standing lateral radiographs of adult volunteers. Spine.2000;25: 2808-15.252808 2000 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Jackson RP, Kanemura T, Kawakami N, Hales C. Lumbopelvic lordosis and pelvic balance on repeated standing lateral radiographs of adult volunteers and un-treated patients with constant low back pain. Spine.2000;25: 575-86.25575 2000 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Jackson RP, McManus AC. Radiographic analysis of sagittal plane alignment and balance in standing volunteers and patients with low back pain matched for age, sex, and size. A prospective controlled clinical study. Spine.1994;19: 1611-8.191611 1994 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Jackson RP, Peterson MD, McManus AC, Hales C. Compensatory spinopelvic balance over the hip axis and better reliability in measuring lordosis to the pelvic radius on standing lateral radiographs of adult volunteers and patients. Spine.1998;23: 1750-67.231750 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Korovessis P, Stamatakis M, Baikousis A. Segmental roentgenographic analysis of vertebral inclination on sagittal plane in asymptomatic versus chronic low back pain patients. J Spinal Disord.1999;12: 131-7.12131 1999

Korovessis PG, Stamatakis MV, Baikousis AG. Reciprocal angulation of vertebral bodies in the sagittal plane in an asymptomatic Greek population. Spine.1998;23: 700-4.23700 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Lazennec JY, Ramare S, Arafati N, Laudet CG, Gorin M, Roger B, Hansen S, Saillant G, Maurs L, Trabelsi R. Sagittal alignment in lumbosacral fusion: relations between radiological parameters and pain. Eur Spine J.2000;9: 47-55.947 2000 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Legaye J, Duval-Beaupere G, Hecquet J, Marty C. Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J.1998;7: 99-103.799 1998 [CrossRef]

Rajnics P, Templier A, Skalli W, Lavaste F, Illes T. The importance of spinopelvic parameters in patients with lumbar disc lesions. Int Orthop.2002;26: 104-8.26104 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Rajnics P, Templier A, Skalli W, Lavaste F, Illes T. The association of sagittal spinal and pelvic parameters in asymptomatic persons and patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech.2002;15: 24-30.1524 2002 [CrossRef]

Van Royen BJ, De Gast A, Smit TH. Deformity planning for sagittal plane corrective osteotomies of the spine in ankylosing spondylitis. Eur Spine J.2000;9: 492-8.9492 2000 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Van Royen BJ, Toussaint HM, Kingma I, Bot SD, Caspers M, Harlaar J, Wuisman PI. Accuracy of the sagittal vertical axis in a standing lateral radiograph as a measurement of balance in spinal deformities. Eur Spine J.1998;7: 408-12.7408 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Vaz G, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J. Sagittal morphology and equilibrium of pelvis and spine. Eur Spine J.2002;11: 80-7.1180 2002 [CrossRef]

Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D. Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J.2001;10: 314-9.10314 2001 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Mangione P, Senegas J. [Sagittal balance of the spine]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot.1997;83: 22-32. French.8322 1997 [PubMed]

Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Janik TJ, Troyanovich SJ, Harrison DE, Holland B. Elliptical modeling of the sagittal lumbar lordosis and segmental rotation angles as a method to discriminate between normal and low back pain subjects. J Spinal Disord.1998;11: 430-9.11430 1998 [PubMed]

Schwab FJ, Farcy JP, Roye DP Jr. The sagittal pelvic tilt index as a criterion in the evaluation of spondylolisthesis. Preliminary observations. Spine.1997;22: 1661-7.221661 1997 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Rillardon L, Levassor N, Guigui P, Wodecki P, Cardinne L, Templier A, Skalli W. [Validation of a tool to measure pelvic and spinal parameters of sagittal balance]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot.2003;89: 218-27. French.89218 2003

Duval-Beaupère G, Robain G. Visualization on full spine radiographs of the anatomical connections of the centres of the segmental body mass supported by each vertebra and measured in vivo. Int Orthop.1987;11: 261-9.11261 1987 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Duval-Beaupère G, Schmidt C, Cosson P. A Barycentimetric study of the sagittal shape of spine and pelvis: the conditions required for an economic standing position. Ann Biomed Eng.1992;20: 451-62.20451 1992 [CrossRef]

Bernhardt M, Bridwell KH. Segmental analysis of the sagittal plane alignment of the normal thoracic and lumbar spines and thoracolumbar junction. Spine.1989;14: 717-21.14717 1989 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Gelb DE, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Blanke K, McEnery KW. An analysis of sagittal spinal alignment in 100 asymptomatic middle and older aged volunteers. Spine.1995;20: 1351-8.201351 1995 [PubMed]

Stagnara P, De Mauroy JC, Dran G, Gonon GP, Costanzo G, Dimnet J, Pasquet A. Reciprocal angulation of vertebral bodies in a sagittal plane: approach to references for the evaluation of kyphosis and lordosis. Spine.1982;7: 335-42.7335 1982 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Troyanovich SJ, Cailliet R, Janik TJ, Harrison DD, Harrison DE. Radiographic mensuration characteristics of the sagittal lumbar spine from a normal population with a method to synthesize prior studies of lordosis. J Spinal Disord.1997;10: 380-6.10380 1997 [PubMed]

Voutsinas SA, MacEwen GD. Sagittal profiles of the spine. Clin Orthop.1986;210: 235-242.210235 1986 [PubMed]

Vedantam R, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Linville DL, Blanke K. The effect of variation in arm position on sagittal spinal alignment. Spine.2000;25: 2204-9.252204 2000 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Marks MC, Stanford CF, Mahar AT, Newton PO. Standing lateral radiographic positioning does not represent customary standing balance. Spine.2003;28: 1176-82.281176 2003 [PubMed]

[Recent fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine with or without neurologic disorders]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot.1996;82 Suppl 1: 61-127. French.8261 1996 [PubMed]

Topics

congenital kyphosis ; lordosis ; spine ; pelvic tilt

Username

Password

Access for Patients

Forgot Password?

Have a subscription to the print edition?

Not a Subscriber?

Buy this Article

Get online access for 30 days for $35

New to JBJS?

Subscribe to the online edition for 30 days for $75

Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.

Have a subscription to the print edition?

Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.

Activate your online account now

Forgot your password?

Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

Username:*

Email Address:*

Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

References

Accreditation Statement

These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

CME Activities Associated with This Article

Submit a Comment

Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field

Comment Author(s) * (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)

Example: John Doe

Affiliation & Institution*

Comment Title*

Comment*

Cancel

Print
PDF
Email

Recipient(s) will receive an email with a link (good for 5 days) to 'Radiographic Analysis of the Sagittal Alignment and Balance of the Spine in Asymptomatic Subjects'.
Your Name:*
Example: John Doe

Email Address:* CC Me:
Enter your valid email address. Example: jdoe@example.com

Recipient's Email Address:*

Separate multiple email address with semi-colons (up to 5).

Subject:* 's The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery: 'Radiographic Analysis of the Sagittal Alignment and Balance of the Spine in Asymptomatic Subjects'
Subject for your email.

Message:

(Optional, message will truncate at 1000 characters)

Processing your request... Please Wait...

Copyright © in the material you requested is held by The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Inc. (unless otherwise noted). This email ability is provided as a courtesy, and by using it you agree that that you are requesting the material solely for personal, non-commercial use, and that it is subject to Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Inc.'s Terms of Use. The information provided in order to email this topic will not be used to send unsolicited email, nor will it be furnished to third parties. Please refer to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery Inc.'s Privacy Policy for further information.

Copyright © The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery Inc. All rights reserved.
Share
Get Citation

Raphaël Vialle, Nicolas Levassor, Ludovic Rillardon, Alexandre Templier, Wafa Skalli, Pierre Guigui; Radiographic Analysis of the Sagittal Alignment and Balance of the Spine in Asymptomatic Subjects. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 2005 Feb;87(2):260-267.

Download citation file:

RIS (Zotero)

EndNote

BibTex

Medlars

ProCite

RefWorks

Reference Manager

Copyright © The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Rights & Permissions
Article Alerts

Processing your request... Please Wait.
Submit a Comment