Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 9, pp 1948–1954 | Cite as

Lumbar lordosis does not correlate with pelvic incidence in the cases with the lordosis apex located at L3 or above

  • Osamu Tono
  • Kazuhiro HasegawaEmail author
  • Masashi Okamoto
  • Shun Hatsushikano
  • Haruka Shimoda
  • Kei Watanabe
  • Katsumi Harimaya
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To test the hypothesis that the relationship between PI and L1–S1 lumbar lordosis (LL) is always positive, even in cases with different lumbar sagittal profiles.

Methods

Standing whole-spine sagittal alignment was measured with EOS system in 100 healthy adults (46 men, 54 women, mean age 40.9 years). The apex of lumbar lordosis was defined as the most anterior lumbar vertebra or intervertebral disk from the gravity line determined by a force plate measurement. Subjects were stratified into three groups: the upper group with an apex between L1 and L3 (UppA, n = 19), the middle group with an apex from L3/4 to L4/5 (MidA, n = 67), and the lower group with an apex at L5 or below (LowA, n = 14). PI, PT, SS, thoracic kyphosis (TK), LL, SVA, T1 pelvic angle, and knee flexion angle were compared between the groups. The correlation between LL and PI in each group was also compared.

Results

PI and SS differed significantly between the three groups, and LL was significantly different between LowA and MidA and UppA. TK and KF did not differ significantly between groups. LL and PI were significantly positively correlated in the MidA and LowA groups, but not in the UppA group.

Conclusion

Contrary to the hypothesis, the correlation coefficient between PI and LL was not significant in the cases with apex above L3, suggesting that the relationship between PI and LL is not always constant, and whole sagittal alignment should be taken into account.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Apex of lumbar lordosis Healthy volunteers Lumbar lordosis Pelvic incidence Sagittal spine profile 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has received any grant or financial support for the present study.

Supplementary material

586_2018_5695_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (213 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 212 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR et al (2005) The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine 30:2024–2029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diebo BG, Ferrero E, Lafage R et al (2015) Recruitment of compensatory mechanisms in sagittal spinal malalignment is age and regional deformity dependent: a full-standing axis analysis of key radiographical parameters. Spine 40:642–649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lafage R, Schwab F, Challier V et al (2016) Defining spino-pelvic alignment thresholds: should operative goals in adult spinal deformity surgery account for age? Spine 41:62–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duval-Beaupère G, Schmidt C, Cosson P (1992) A Barycentremetric study of the sagittal shape of spine and pelvis: the conditions required for an economic standing position. Ann Biomed Eng 20:451–462CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duval-Beaupère G, Legaye J (2004) Composante sagittale de la statique rachidienne. Rev Rhum 71:105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Le Huec JC, Hasegawa K (2016) Normative values for the spine shape parameters using 3D standing analysis from a database of 268 asymptomatic Caucasian and Japanese subjects. Eur Spine J 25:3630–3637CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hasegawa K, Okamoto M, Hatsushikano S et al (2016) Normative values of spino-pelvic sagittal alignment, balance, age, and health-related quality of life in a cohort of healthy adult subjects. Eur Spine J 25:3675–3686CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schwab F, Lafage V, Patel A et al (2009) Sagittal plane considerations and the pelvis in the adult patient. Spine 34:1828–1833CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schwab FJ, Blondel B, Bess S et al (2013) Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine 38:E803–E812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 30:346–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Legaye J, Duval-Beaupere G (2017) Influence of a variation in the position of the arms on the sagittal connection of the gravity line with the spinal structures. Eur Spine J 26:2828–2833CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2952CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Protopsaltis T, Schwab F, Bronsard N et al (2014) TheT1 pelvic angle, a novel radiographic measure of global sagittal deformity, accounts for both spinal inclination and pelvic tilt and correlates with health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:1631–1640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hasegawa K, Okamoto M, Hatsushikano S et al (2017) Standing sagittal alignment of the whole axial skeleton with reference to the gravity line in humans. J Anat 230:619–630CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dubousset J (1994) Three-dimensional analysis of the scoliotic deformity. In: Weinstein SL (ed) Pediatric spine: principles and practice. Raven Press, New York, pp 479–483Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stagnara P, De Mauroy JC, Dran G et al (1982) Reciprocal angulation of vertebral bodies in a sagittal plane: approach to references for the evaluation of kyphosis and lordosis. Spine 7:335–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bernhardt M, Bridwell KH (1989) Segmental analysis of the sagittal plane alignment of the normal thoracic and lumbar spines and thoracolumbar junction. Spine 14:717–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roussouly P, Pinheiro-Franco JL (2011) Sagittal parameters of the spine: biomechanical approach. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 5):578–585CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Janik TJ, Harrison DD, Cailliet R et al (1998) Can the sagittal lumbar curvature be closely approximated by an ellipse? J Orthop Res 16:766–770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Korovessis PG, Stamatakis MV, Baikousis AG (1998) Reciprocal angulation of vertebral bodies in the sagittal plane in an asymptomatic Greek population. Spine 23:700–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Soroceanu A, Diebo BG, Burton D et al (2015) Radiographical and implant-related complications in adult spinal deformity surgery: incidence, patient risk factors, and impact on health-related quality of life. Spine 40:1414–1421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lafage R, Line BG, Gupta S et al (2017) Orientation of the upper-most instrumented segment influences proximal junctional disease following adult spinal deformity surgery. Spine 42:1570–1577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yilgor C, Sogunmez N, Boissiere L et al (2017) Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP) Score: development and validation of a new method of analyzing spinopelvic alignment to predict mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:1661–1672CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anwar HA, Butler JS, Yarashi T et al (2015) Segmental Pelvic Correlation (SPeC): a novel approach to understanding sagittal plane spinal alignment. Spine J 15:2518–2523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tardieu C, Hasegawa K, Haeusler M (2017) How did the pelvis and vertebral column become a functional unit during the transition from occasional to permanent bipedalism? Anat Rec 300:912–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Duval-Beaupère G, Robain G (1987) 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 11:261–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vrtovec T, Janssen MM, Likar B et al (2012) A review of methods for evaluating the quantitative parameters of sagittal pelvic alignment. Spine J 12:433–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Niigata Spine Surgery CenterNiigata CityJapan
  2. 2.Division of Orthopedic SurgeryNiigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental SciencesNiigata CityJapan
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryKyushu University Beppu HospitalOitaJapan

Personalised recommendations