Correlation and differences in cervical sagittal alignment parameters between cervical radiographs and magnetic resonance images

  • Masahito Oshina
  • Masashi Tanaka
  • Yasushi Oshima
  • Sakae Tanaka
  • K. Daniel Riew
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Although cervical alignment is better assessed using standing radiography than supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), few studies have investigated this. This study aimed to investigate the difference in alignment between standing radiographs and supine MRI images, and assess whether neck position affects the cervical parameters and neurological changes.

Methods

We analyzed 53 patients, measuring the O–C2 angle, C2–7 angle (the distinction between the lordotic and kyphotic groups), T1 slope, neck tilt, thoracic inlet angle, and the C2–7 sagittal vertical axis. Inter- and intra-group analyses were conducted to identify any difference between standing radiography and supine MRI. Statistical differences between the cervical parameters were compared.

Results

Strong correlations were noted between the equivalent parameters in the radiographs and MRI images, whereas no significant difference was observed in C2–7 angle in the kyphotic group between the radiographs and MRI images, or for neck tilt between the radiographs and MRI images. However, in the lordotic group, the C2–7 angle was significantly different between the two types of images and larger in the radiographs than in the MRI images (C2–7 angle in the radiographs: C2–7 angle in the MRI images: 4.49°, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Neck tilt was a constant parameter. The C2–7 angle in the kyphotic group was similar between the standing radiographs and the supine MRI images; however, the C2–7 angle in the lordotic group was different. Therefore, we recommend that standing cervical radiographs should be preoperatively obtained for all surgical patients.

Graphical abstract

The slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Cervical parameters Standing radiograph Magnetic resonance imaging Cervical sagittal alignment 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No funds were received in support of this work. Dr. Riew receives royalties from Biomet and Medtronic, owns stock in Osprey, Expanding Orthopedics, Spineology, Spinal Kinetics, Nexgen Spine, Amedica, Vertiflex, Benvenue, Paradigm Spine, receives honorarium from Biomet, Medtronic, Zeiss, and AO Spine. Dr. Sakae Tanaka receives honorarium from MSD K.K, ASAHI KASEI PHARMA CORPORATION, Astellas Pharma Inc, Eisai Co., Ltd, KAKEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO.LTD, Johnson & Johnson K. K, DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LIMITED, Taisho Toyama Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Eli Lilly Japan K. K, Pfizer Japan inc, TEIJIN PHARMA LIMITED, AbbVie GK, ONO PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD, Amgen Astellas BioPharma K. K, Amgen inc, KYOCERA Medical Corporation, receives endowments from AYUMI Pharmaceutical Corporation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer Japan inc, DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LIMITED, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, and receives grants from The Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)/Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A), and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)/Grant-in-Aid for Exploratory Research. Dr. Oshina, Dr. Oshima, and Dr. Masashi Tanaka have nothing to disclose.

Supplementary material

586_2018_5550_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (1.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 1342 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Singhatanadgige W, Kang DG, Luksanapruksa P, Peters C, Riew KD (2016) Correlation and reliability of cervical sagittal alignment parameters between lateral cervical radiograph and lateral whole-body EOS stereoradiograph. Glob Spine J 6:548–554.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1569462 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carreon LY, Smith CL, Dimar JR, Glassman SD (2016) Correlation of cervical sagittal alignment parameters on full-length spine radiographs compared with dedicated cervical radiographs. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 11:12.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-016-0072-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Janusz P, Tyrakowski M, Glowka P, Offoha R, Siemionow K (2015) Influence of cervical spine position on the radiographic parameters of the thoracic inlet alignment. Eur Spine J 24:2880–2884.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4023-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Park MS, Moon SH, Kim TH, Oh JK, Kang HJ, Riew KD (2016) Radiographic comparison between cervical spine lateral and whole-spine lateral standing radiographs. Glob Spine J 6:118–123.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1556584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jun HS, Chang IB, Song JH et al (2014) Is it possible to evaluate the parameters of cervical sagittal alignment on cervical computed tomographic scans? Spine 39:E630–E636.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000281 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Iyer S, Lenke LG, Nemani VM et al (2016) Variations in occipitocervical and cervicothoracic alignment parameters based on age: a prospective study of asymptomatic volunteers using full-body radiographs. Spine 41:1837–1844.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001644 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oe S, Togawa D, Nakai K et al (2015) The influence of age and sex on cervical spinal alignment among volunteers aged over 50. Spine 40:1487–1494.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001071 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weng C, Wang J, Tuchman A et al (2016) Influence of T1 slope on the cervical sagittal balance in degenerative cervical spine: An analysis using kinematic MRI. Spine 41:185–190.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001353 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miyazaki M, Hymanson HJ, Morishita Y (2008) Kinematic analysis of the relationship between sagittal alignment and disc degeneration in the cervical spine. Spine 33:E870–E876.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181839733 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morishita Y, Hymanson H, Miyazaki M et al (2008) Kinematic evaluation of the spine: a kinetic magnetic resonance imaging study. J Orthop Surg 16:348–350.  https://doi.org/10.1177/230949900801600316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee HD, Jeon CH, Chung NS et al (2017) Comparative analysis of three imaging modalities for evaluation of cervical sagittal alignment parameters: a validity and reliability study. Spine 42:1901–1907CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knott PT, Mardjetko SM, Techy F (2010) The use of the T1 sagittal angle in predicting overall sagittal balance of the spine. Spine J 10:994–998.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2010.08.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee SH, Kim KT, Seo EM et al (2012) The influence of thoracic inlet alignment on the craniocervical sagittal balance in asymptomatic adults. J Spinal Disord Tech 25:E41–E47.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182396301 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ohara A, Miyamoto K, Naganawa T, Matsumoto K, Shimizu K (2006) Reliabilities of and correlations among five standard methods of assessing the sagittal alignment of the cervical spine. Spine 31:2585–2591.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000240656.79060.18 (discussion 2592) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Khayatzadeh S et al (2015) Postural consequences of cervical sagittal imbalance. Spine 40:783–792.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000877 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yukawa Y, Kato F, Suda K, Yamagata M, Ueta T (2012) Age-related changes in osseous anatomy, alignment, and range of motion of the cervical spine. Part I: radiographic data from over 1200 asymptomatic subjects. Eur Spine J 21:1492–1498.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2167-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nowak DD, Lee JK, Gelb DE, Poelstra KA, Ludwig SC (2009) Central cord syndrome. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17:756–765 (Review) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ruangchainikom M, Daubs MD, Suzuki A et al (2014) Effect of cervical kyphotic deformity type on the motion characteristics and dynamic spinal cord compression. Spine 39:932–938.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000330 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gerigk L, Bostel T, Hegewald A et al (2012) Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine with high-resolution 3-dimensional T2-imaging. Clin Neuroradiol 22:93–99.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-011-0121-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith JS, Lafage V, Ryan DJ et al (2013) 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 38:S161–S170.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7eb9e CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masahito Oshina
    • 1
    • 2
  • Masashi Tanaka
    • 2
  • Yasushi Oshima
    • 1
  • Sakae Tanaka
    • 1
  • K. Daniel Riew
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryThe University of Tokyo HospitalTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations