The sitting vs standing spine.
EOS imaging
Seated imaging
Sitting radiographs
Spine surgery
Spine, spinal fusion
sedentary lifestyle
Journal
North American Spine Society journal
ISSN: 2666-5484
Titre abrégé: N Am Spine Soc J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918335076906676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
18
01
2022
revised:
21
02
2022
accepted:
24
02
2022
entrez:
21
3
2022
pubmed:
22
3
2022
medline:
22
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Planning of surgical procedures for spinal fusion is performed on standing radiographs, neglecting the fact that patients are mostly in the sitting position during daily life. The awareness about the differences in the standing and sitting configuration of the spine has increased during the last years. The purpose was to provide an overview of studies related to seated imaging for spinal fusion surgery, identify knowledge gaps and evaluate future research questions. A literature search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMASc) was performed to identify reports related to seated imaging for spinal deformity surgery. A summary of the finding is presented for healthy individuals as well as patients with a spinal disorder and/or surgery. The systematic search identified 30 original studies reporting on 1) the pre- and postoperative use of seated imaging of the spine (n=12), 2) seated imaging of the spine for non - surgical evaluation (n=7) and 3) seated imaging of the spine among healthy individuals (12). The summarized evidence illuminates that sitting leads to a straightening of the spine decreasing thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), the sacral slope (SS). Further, the postural change between standing and sitting is more significant on the lower segments of the spine. Also, the adjacent segment compensates the needed postural change of the lumbar spine while sitting with hyperkyphosis. The spine has a different configuration in standing and sitting. This systematic review summarizes the current knowledge about such differences and reveals that there is minimal evidence about their consideration for surgical planning of spinal fusion surgery. Further, it identifies gaps in knowledge and areas of further research.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Planning of surgical procedures for spinal fusion is performed on standing radiographs, neglecting the fact that patients are mostly in the sitting position during daily life. The awareness about the differences in the standing and sitting configuration of the spine has increased during the last years. The purpose was to provide an overview of studies related to seated imaging for spinal fusion surgery, identify knowledge gaps and evaluate future research questions.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A literature search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMASc) was performed to identify reports related to seated imaging for spinal deformity surgery. A summary of the finding is presented for healthy individuals as well as patients with a spinal disorder and/or surgery.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The systematic search identified 30 original studies reporting on 1) the pre- and postoperative use of seated imaging of the spine (n=12), 2) seated imaging of the spine for non - surgical evaluation (n=7) and 3) seated imaging of the spine among healthy individuals (12). The summarized evidence illuminates that sitting leads to a straightening of the spine decreasing thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), the sacral slope (SS). Further, the postural change between standing and sitting is more significant on the lower segments of the spine. Also, the adjacent segment compensates the needed postural change of the lumbar spine while sitting with hyperkyphosis.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The spine has a different configuration in standing and sitting. This systematic review summarizes the current knowledge about such differences and reveals that there is minimal evidence about their consideration for surgical planning of spinal fusion surgery. Further, it identifies gaps in knowledge and areas of further research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35310424
doi: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2022.100108
pii: S2666-5484(22)00011-7
pmc: PMC8924684
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
100108Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of North American Spine Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper
Références
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 23;18(1):
pubmed: 33374537
Bone Jt Open. 2020 Nov 1;1(6):281-286
pubmed: 33215115
J Orthop Sci. 2012 Nov;17(6):682-6
pubmed: 22915074
J Spine Surg. 2018 Sep;4(3):509-515
pubmed: 30547112
J Clin Med. 2020 Dec 15;9(12):
pubmed: 33333994
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Oct 1;42(19):1447-1455
pubmed: 28240654
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018 Sep;104(5):565-568
pubmed: 30009961
Asian Spine J. 2021 Jun;15(3):308-316
pubmed: 32951403
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021 Feb 1;46(3):E187-E189
pubmed: 33399439
Appl Ergon. 2019 Nov;81:102894
pubmed: 31422243
Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2010 Jul;38(3):105-13
pubmed: 20577058
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2012 Jan;51(1):20-3
pubmed: 22396838
J Pediatr Orthop. 2014 Mar;34(2):202-7
pubmed: 23965915
Global Spine J. 2021 Sep;11(7):1099-1103
pubmed: 32748641
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Sep 3;17(1):111
pubmed: 32883294
J Neurosurg Spine. 2010 Aug;13(2):144-57
pubmed: 20672949
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Nov 18;21(1):760
pubmed: 33208130
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jun 08;17(11):
pubmed: 32521625
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Oct 15;37(22 Suppl):S144-64
pubmed: 22885829
Clin Orthop Surg. 2018 Sep;10(3):322-327
pubmed: 30174808
Arthritis Res Ther. 2018 Nov 6;20(1):251
pubmed: 30400975
Open Orthop J. 2015 Jan 31;9:20-5
pubmed: 25674185
Cureus. 2020 Aug 16;12(8):e9776
pubmed: 32953294
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Feb 15;36(4):320-31
pubmed: 20736894
Indian J Orthop. 2017 Mar-Apr;51(2):139-146
pubmed: 28400658
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Dec 15;45(24):1704-1712
pubmed: 32890306
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013 Sep 11;10:107
pubmed: 24020702
Pediatr Radiol. 2015 Nov;45(12):1864-9
pubmed: 26111869
Eur Spine J. 2019 Sep;28(9):1914-1919
pubmed: 30859390
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016 Sep;9(3):299-308
pubmed: 27278530
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006 Oct;19(7):495-500
pubmed: 17021413
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022 Jan 28;23(1):98
pubmed: 35090408
Childs Nerv Syst. 2017 Feb;33(2):337-341
pubmed: 28028597
J Orthop Sci. 2016 Nov;21(6):713-717
pubmed: 27464715
J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2018 Jul;22(1):74-80
pubmed: 29726791
J Biomech. 2019 May 24;89:95-104
pubmed: 31047693
ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012:184016
pubmed: 23226980
Spine J. 2020 Apr;20(4):614-620
pubmed: 31821889
BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2021 Feb 1;7(1):e000960
pubmed: 34192010
Spine J. 2017 Jun;17(6):799-806
pubmed: 27063999
Spine Surg Relat Res. 2018 Mar 15;2(4):290-293
pubmed: 31435536
Asian Spine J. 2015 Oct;9(5):762-9
pubmed: 26435796
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 02;11(3):e0149320
pubmed: 26934701
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2018 May-Aug;26(3):2309499018806700
pubmed: 30352524
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021 Apr 1;479(4):817-825
pubmed: 33165051
Heliyon. 2021 Jun;7(6):e07335
pubmed: 34179540
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2015 Nov 03;3:178
pubmed: 26579518
BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2021 Sep 7;7(3):e001194
pubmed: 34513003
Phys Ther. 2021 Feb 4;101(2):
pubmed: 33336706
Front Sports Act Living. 2021 Nov 03;3:760533
pubmed: 34805980
J Neurosurg Spine. 2018 Oct;29(4):414-421
pubmed: 29979136
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Aug 1;45(15):E950-E958
pubmed: 32675610