Association between sagittal alignment and loads at the adjacent segment in the fused spine: a combined clinical and musculoskeletal modeling study of 205 patients with adult spinal deformity.

PURPOSE: Sagittal malalignment is a risk factor for mechanical complications after surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Spinal loads, modulated by sagittal alignment, may explain this relationship. The aims of this study were to investigate the relationships between: (1) postoperative changes in loads at the proximal segment and realignment, and (2) absolute postoperative loads and postoperative alignment measures. METHODS: A previously validated musculoskeletal model of the whole spine was applied to study a clinical sample of 205 patients with ASD. Based on clinical and radiographic data, pre-and postoperative patient-specific alignments were simulated to predict loads at the proximal segment adjacent to the spinal fusion. RESULTS: Weak-to-moderate associations were found between pre-to-postop changes in lumbar lordosis, LL (r = - 0.23, r = - 0.43; p < 0.001), global tilt, GT (r = 0.26, r = 0.38; p < 0.001) and the Global Alignment and Proportion score, GAP (r = 0.26, r = 0.37; p < 0.001), and changes in compressive and shear forces at the proximal segment. GAP score parameters, thoracic kyphosis measurements and the slope of upper instrumented vertebra were associated with changes in shear. In patients with T10-pelvis fusion, moderate-to-strong associations were found between postoperative sagittal alignment measures and compressive and shear loads, with GT showing the strongest correlations (r = 0.75, r = 0.73, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal loads were estimated for patient-specific full spinal alignment profiles in a large cohort of patients with ASD pre-and postoperatively. Loads on the proximal segments were greater in association with sagittal malalignment and malorientation of proximal vertebra. Future work should explore whether they provide a causative mechanism explaining the associated risk of proximal junction complications.

Reliability of a New Digital Tool for Photographic Analysis in Quantifying Body Asymmetry in Scoliosis.

Background: Advancements in non-ionizing methods for quantifying spinal deformities are crucial for assessing and monitoring scoliosis. In this study, we analyzed the observer variability of a newly developed digital tool for quantifying body asymmetry from clinical photographs. Methods: Prospective observational multicenter study. Initially, a digital tool was developed using image analysis software, calculating quantitative measures of body asymmetry. This tool was integrated into an online platform that exports data to a database. The tool calculated 10 parameters, including angles (shoulder height, axilla height, waist height, right and left waistline angles, and their difference) and surfaces of the left and right hemitrunks (shoulders, waists, pelvises, and total). Subsequently, an online training course on the tool was conducted for twelve observers not involved in its development (six research coordinators and six spine surgeons). Finally, 15 standardized back photographs of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients were selected from a multicenter image bank, representing various clinical scenarios (different age, gender, curve type, BMI, and pre- and postoperative images). The 12 observers measured the photographs at two different times with a three-week interval. For the second round, the images were randomly mixed. Inter- and intra-observer variabilities of the measurements were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and reliability was measured by the standard error of measurement (SEM). Group comparisons were made using Student's t-test. Results: The mean inter-observer ICC for the ten measurements was 0.981, the mean intra-observer ICC was 0.937, and SEM was 0.3-1.3°. The parameter with the strongest inter- and intra-observer validity was the difference in waistline angles 0.994 and 0.974, respectively, while the highest variability was found with the waist height angle 0.963 and 0.845, respectively. No test-retest differences (p > 0.05) were observed between researchers (0.948 ± 0.04) and surgeons (0.925 ± 0.05). Conclusion: We developed a new digital tool integrated into an online platform demonstrating excellent reliability and inter- and intra-observer variabilities for quantifying body asymmetry in scoliosis patients from a simple clinical photograph. The method could be used for assessing and monitoring scoliosis and body asymmetry without radiation.