Radiographical Spinopelvic Parameters and Disability in the Setting of Adult Spinal Deformity: A Prospective Multicenter Analysis

Study Design. Prospective multicenter study evaluating operative (OP) versus nonoperative (NONOP) treatment for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Objective. Evaluate correlations between spinopelvic parameters and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores in patients with ASD. Summary of Background Data. Sagittal spinal deformity is commonly defined by an increased sagittal vertical axis (SVA); however, SVA alone may underestimate the severity of the deformity. Spinopelvic parameters provide a more complete assessment of the sagittal plane but only limited data are available that correlate spinopelvic parameters with disability. Methods. Baseline demographic, radiographical, and HRQOL data were obtained for all patients enrolled in a multicenter consecutive database. Inclusion criteria were: age more than 18 years and radiographical diagnosis of ASD. Radiographical evaluation was conducted on the frontal and lateral planes and HRQOL questionnaires (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Scoliosis Research Society-22r and Short Form [SF]-12) were completed. Radiographical parameters demonstrating highest correlation with HRQOL values were evaluated to determine thresholds predictive of ODI more than 40. Results. Four hundred ninety-two consecutive patients with ASD (mean age, 51.9 yr) were enrolled. Patients from the OP group (n = 178) were older (55 vs. 50.1 yr, P < 0.05), had greater SVA (5.5 vs. 1.7 cm, P < 0.05), greater pelvic tilt (PT; 22° vs. 11°, P < 0.05), and greater pelvic incidence/lumbar lordosis PI/LL mismatch (PI-LL; 12.2 vs. 4.3; P < 0.05) than NONOP group (n = 314). OP group demonstrated greater disability on all HRQOL measures compared with NONOP group (ODI = 41.4 vs. 23.9, P < 0.05; Scoliosis Research Society score total = 2.9 vs. 3.5, P < 0.05). Pearson analysis demonstrated that among all parameters, PT, SVA, and PI-LL correlated most strongly with disability for both OP and NONOP groups (P < 0.001). Linear regression models demonstrated threshold radiographical spinopelvic parameters for ODI more than 40 to be: PT 22° or more (r = 0.38), SVA 47 mm or more (r = 0.47), PI − LL 11° or more (r = 0.45). Conclusion. ASD is a disabling condition. Prospective analysis of consecutively enrolled patients with ASD demonstrated that PT and PI-LL combined with SVA can predict patient disability and provide a guide for patient assessment for appropriate therapeutic decision making. Threshold values for severe disability (ODI > 40) included: PT 22° or more, SVA 47 mm or more, and PI − LL 11° or more.

[1]  H. Labelle,et al.  Analysis of the Sagittal Balance of the Spine and Pelvis Using Shape and Orientation Parameters , 2005, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[2]  Kai-Ming G. Fu,et al.  IMPROVEMENT OF BACK PAIN WITH OPERATIVE AND NONOPERATIVE TREATMENT IN ADULTS WITH SCOLIOSIS , 2009, Neurosurgery.

[3]  J. Hecquet,et al.  Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves , 1998, European Spine Journal.

[4]  Kai-Ming G. Fu,et al.  Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment of Leg Pain in Adults With Scoliosis: A Retrospective Review of a Prospective Multicenter Database With Two-Year Follow-up , 2009, Spine.

[5]  C. Shaffrey,et al.  Dynamic Changes of the Pelvis and Spine Are Key to Predicting Postoperative Sagittal Alignment After Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy: A Critical Analysis of Preoperative Planning Techniques , 2012, Spine.

[6]  Wafa Skalli,et al.  Radiographic analysis of the sagittal alignment and balance of the spine in asymptomatic subjects. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[7]  J C Fairbank,et al.  The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. , 1980, Physiotherapy.

[8]  J. Pélissier,et al.  Sagittal alignment of spine and pelvis regulated by pelvic incidence: standard values and prediction of lordosis , 2006, European Spine Journal.

[9]  K. Cho,et al.  Risk Factors of Sagittal Decompensation After Long Posterior Instrumentation and Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis , 2010, Spine.

[10]  P. Pynsent,et al.  The Oswestry Disability Index. , 2000, Spine.

[11]  C. Schmidt,et al.  A barycentremetric study of the sagittal shape of spine and pelvis: The conditions required for an economic standing position , 2006, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[12]  William Horton,et al.  Correlation of Radiographic Parameters and Clinical Symptoms in Adult Scoliosis , 2005, Spine.

[13]  Guoan Li,et al.  Adult Scoliosis in Patients Over Sixty-Five Years of Age: Outcomes of Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment at a Minimum Two-Year Follow-up , 2009, Spine.

[14]  Wafa Skalli,et al.  Gravity Line Analysis in Adult Volunteers: Age-Related Correlation With Spinal Parameters, Pelvic Parameters, and Foot Position , 2006, Spine.

[15]  P. Roussouly,et al.  The Vertical Projection of the Sum of the Ground Reactive Forces of a Standing Patient Is Not the Same as the C7 Plumb Line: A Radiographic Study of the Sagittal Alignment of 153 Asymptomatic Volunteers , 2006, Spine.

[16]  P. Huddleston.  Risk-Benefit Assessment of Surgery for Adult Scoliosis: An Analysis Based on Patient Age , 2012 .

[17]  F. Schwab,et al.  Adult Spinal Deformity—Postoperative Standing Imbalance: How Much Can You Tolerate? An Overview of Key Parameters in Assessing Alignment and Planning Corrective Surgery , 2010, Spine.

[18]  Kai-Ming G. Fu,et al.  Neurological symptoms and deficits in adults with scoliosis who present to a surgical clinic: incidence and association with the choice of operative versus nonoperative management. , 2008, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[19]  Ashish Patel,et al.  Pelvic Tilt and Truncal Inclination: Two Key Radiographic Parameters in the Setting of Adults With Spinal Deformity , 2009, Spine.

[20]  Munish C. Gupta,et al.  Multicenter validation of a formula predicting postoperative spinopelvic alignment. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[21]  F. Schwab,et al.  Adult Scoliosis: A Quantitative Radiographic and Clinical Analysis , 2002, Spine.

[22]  K. Bridwell,et al.  Do 1-year outcomes predict 2-year outcomes for adult deformity surgery? , 2009, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[23]  W. Skalli,et al.  Validation of new clinical quantitative analysis software applicable in spine orthopaedic studies , 2006, European Spine Journal.

[24]  William Horton,et al.  The Impact of Positive Sagittal Balance in Adult Spinal Deformity , 2005, Spine.

[25]  Kai-Ming G. Fu,et al.  Standardized Measures of Health Status and Disability and the Decision to Pursue Operative Treatment in Elderly Patients With Degenerative Scoliosis , 2010, Neurosurgery.

[26]  F. Schwab,et al.  Adult Scoliosis: Prevalence, SF-36, and Nutritional Parameters in an Elderly Volunteer Population , 2005, Spine.

[27]  L. Lenke,et al.  Does Treatment (Nonoperative and Operative) Improve the Two-Year Quality of Life in Patients With Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis: A Prospective Multicenter Evidence-Based Medicine Study , 2009, Spine.

[28]  K. Bridwell.  Decision Making Regarding Smith-Petersen vs. Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy vs. Vertebral Column Resection for Spinal Deformity , 2006, Spine.

[29]  K. Bridwell,et al.  The Costs and Benefits of Nonoperative Management for Adult Scoliosis , 2010, Spine.

[30]  L. Lenke,et al.  An Analysis of Sagittal Spinal Alignment Following Long Adult Lumbar Instrumentation and Fusion to L5 or S1: Can We Predict Ideal Lumbar Lordosis? , 2006, Spine.

[31]  Ashish Patel,et al.  Sagittal Plane Considerations and the Pelvis in the Adult Patient , 2009, Spine.