Fulcrum to Generate Maximum Extension of the Spine and Hip-Proposing A New Strategy using EOS Imaging for Patient-specific Assessment of Degenerated Lumbar Spines.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, radiographic comparative study conducted in a single academic institution. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare fulcrum extension with conventional extension imaging to determine maximum "hip lordosis" (HL), an important novel patient-specific parameter in spinal realignment surgery, as well as understand the extension capabilities of the lower lumbar spine, which together, are key contributors to whole-body balancing. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent literature recognizes the hip as an important contributor to whole-body lordosis beyond a compensator for spinal imbalance. METHODS: Patients >45 years' old with mechanical low back pain due to degenerative spinal conditions were included and grouped based on the imaging performed-fulcrum or conventional extension. All imaging was performed using EOS under standardized instructions and visual aids. Radiographic parameters include global lumbar angle (GLA), inflexion-S1 (Inf-S1) angle, segmental lumbar angles, pelvic incidence (PI), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), femoral alignment angle (FAA), HL and spinocoxa angle (SCA). Unpaired t test was used to compare between radiographic parameters. RESULTS: One hundred patients (40 males and 60 females, mean age 63.0 years) underwent either fulcrum or conventional extension EOS® imaging. Both groups had comparable baseline radiographic parameters. Fulcrum extension gave a larger mean GLA (-60.7° vs. -48.5°, P = 0.001), Inf-S1 angle (-58.8° vs. -48.8°, P = 0.003), SCA (-36.5° vs. -24.8°, P < 0.001), L4/5 and L5/S1 lordosis (-20.7° vs. -17.7°, P = 0.041, and -22.3° vs. -17.1°, P = 0.018, respectively), compared to conventional extension. PI, SS, PT, FAA, and HL were similar between both extension postures. CONCLUSION: Fulcrum extension, compared to conventional extension, is better at generating lordosis in the lower lumbar spine, thus improving preoperative assessment of stiffness or instability of the lumbar spine. Both extension methods were equally effective at determining the patient-specific maximum HL to assess the flexibility and compensation occurring at the hip, potentially guiding surgical management of patients with degenerative spines.Level of Evidence: 3.

Cervical Alignment Variations in Different Postures and Predictors of Normal Cervical Kyphosis: A New Understanding.

STUDY DESIGN: Comparative study of prospectively collected radiographic data. OBJECTIVE: To predict physiological alignment of the cervical spine and study its morphology in different postures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is increasing evidence that normal cervical spinal alignment may vary from lordosis to neutral to kyphosis, or form S-shaped or reverse S-shaped curves. METHODS: Standing, erect sitting, and natural sitting whole-spine radiographs were obtained from 26 consecutive patients without cervical spine pathology. Sagittal vertical axis (SVA), global cervical lordosis, lower cervical alignment C4-T1, C0-C2 angle, T1 slope, C0-C7 SVA and C2-7SVA, SVA, thoracic kyphosis, thoracolumbar junctional angle, lumbar lordosis, sacral slope, pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence were measured. Statistical analysis was performed to elucidate differences in cervical alignment for all postures. Predictive values of T1 slope and SVA for cervical kyphosis were evaluated. RESULTS: Most patients (73.0%) do not have lordotic cervical alignment (C2-C7) upon standing (mean -0.6, standard deviation 11.1°). Lordosis increases significantly when transitioning from standing to erect sitting, as well as from erect to natural sitting (mean -17.2, standard deviation 12.1°). Transition from standing to natural sitting also produces concomitant increases in SVA (-8.8-65.2 mm) and T1-slope (17.4°-30.2°). T1 slope and SVA measured during standing significantly predicts angular cervical spine alignment in the same position. SVA < 10 mm significantly predicts C4-C7 kyphosis (P < 0.001), and to a lesser extent, C2-C7 kyphosis (P = 0.02). T1 slope <20° is both predictive of C2-C7 and C4-7 kyphosis (P = 0.001 and P = 0.023, respectively). For global cervical Cobb angle, T1 slope seems to be a more significant predictor of kyphosis than SVA (odds ratio 17.33, P = 0.001 vs odds ratio 11.67, P = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: The cervical spine has variable normal morphology. Key determinants of its alignment include SVA and T1 slope. Lordotic correction of the cervical spine is not always physiological and thus correction targets should be individualized. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Reproducibility of sagittal radiographic parameters in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis-a guide to reference values using serial imaging.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Knowledge of sagittal radiographic parameters in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients has not yet caught up with our understanding of their roles in patients with adult spinal deformity. It is likely that more emphasis will be placed in restoring sagittal parameters for AIS patients in the future. Therefore, we need to understand how these parameters may vary in AIS to facilitate management plans. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the reproducibility of sagittal spinal parameters on lateral film radiographs in patients with AIS. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This was a retrospective, comparative study conducted in a tertiary health-care institution from January 2013 to February 2016 (3-year period). PATIENT SAMPLE: All AIS patients who underwent deformity correction surgery from January 2013 to February 2016 and had two preoperative serial lateral radiographs taken within the time period of a month were included in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic sagittal spinal parameters including sagittal vertical axis (SVA), cervical lordosis (CL), thoracic kyphosis (TK), thoracolumbar alignment (TL), lumbar lordosis (LL); standard spinopelvic measurements such as pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS); as well as end and apical vertebrae of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar curves were the outcome measures. METHODS: All patient data were pooled from electronic medical records, and X-ray images were retrieved from Centricity Enterprise Web. Averaged X-ray measurements by two independent assessors were analyzed by comparing two radiographs of the same patients performed within a 1-month time period. Chi-squared and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for categorical and continuous variables. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 138 patients, 28 men and 110 women, with a mean age of 15 years (range 11-20). Between the two lateral X-rays, there was a mean difference of 0.79 cm in SVA (p<.001), 0.70° in LL (p=.033), and 0.73° in PT (p=.010). In the combined Lenke 1 and 2 subgroup, there was a similar 0.77 cm (p=.002), 0.79° (p=.009), and 1.49° (p=.001) mean difference in SVA, LL, and PT, respectively. Additionally, there was also a 1.85° (p=.009) and 1.76° (p=.006) mean difference seen in TL and SS, respectively. The overall profile of the sagittal curves remained largely similar, with only the lumbar apex shifting from L3 to L4 during the first and the second X-rays, respectively (p<.001). This occurred for the combined Lenke 1 and 2 subgroup as well (p<.001). CONCLUSION: Most radiographic sagittal spinal parameters in AIS patients are generally reproducible with some variations up to a maximum of 4°. This natural variation should be taken into account when interpreting these radiographic sagittal parameters so as to achieve the most accurate results in surgical planning.