Factors Related to Preoperative Coronal Malalignment in Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis: An Analysis on Coronal Parameters.
Coronal balance distance
Coronal malalignment
Coronal pelvic tilt
Degenerative lumbar scoliosis
Journal
Orthopaedic surgery
ISSN: 1757-7861
Titre abrégé: Orthop Surg
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101501666
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
revised:
29
05
2022
received:
21
02
2022
accepted:
29
05
2022
pubmed:
8
7
2022
medline:
12
8
2022
entrez:
7
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recently the effects of coronal malalignment (CM) in degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) have been reported, however, there was few studies on the correlated parameters of coronal alignments at pre-operation. The aims of this current study were to investigate the associations of coronal parameters with scoliosis and coronal alignment, and to explore the relationships between the coronal pelvic tilt and coronal alignment in DLS. One hundred and sixty-one DLS patients in our hospital from May 2016 to December 2020 were reviewed and documented. The coronal balance distance (CBD, the offset between the center of C7 and the plumb line drawn from the center of S1), major Cobb (MC), fractional Cobb (FC), L4 coronal tilt, L5 coronal tilt, coronal pelvic tilt, apical rotation, and the vertebras in major curve were measured and documented. CM was considered if the CBD ≥ 30mm. All of those participants were assigned into group A (CBD ≥ 30 mm) and group B (CBD < 30 mm). Comparisons of demographic and radiographic data were performed between groups A and B. Pearson correlation and further multiple regression with stepwise method analysis were used to investigate those coronal parameters correlated to MC and CBD, respectively. Thirty-one patients suffering from CM were assigned into group A, and the rest of 130 patients were assigned to group B accordingly. Then the incidence of CM was about 19.3% (31/161). Patients in group A had less vertebras in the main curve (P = 0.009), however, the apical rotation (P < 0.001) and the L4 coronal tilt (P = 0.007) were much larger. Although the MC (P = 0.426) and FC (P = 0.06) had no difference between the two groups, the match between MC and FC was much smaller (p = 0.021) in group A. The coronal pelvic tilt correlated significantly with FC (r = 0.552, p < 0.001), but mildly with MC (r = -0.366, p < 0.001), L4 coronal tilt (r = 0.348, p < 0.001), and L5 coronal tilt (r = 0.351, p < 0.001), respectively. The CBD correlated strongly with L4 coronal tilt (r = -0.471, p < 0.001) and L5 coronal tilt (r = -0.468, p < 0.001), respectively, but mildly with FC (r = -0.255, p = 0.016). Further multiple regression analysis revealed that only L4 coronal tilt was the independent factor for MC (r The prevalence of CM in DLS patients is about 19% at pre-operation. With similar major Cobb, the less the vertebras in the major curve, the larger the CBD. L4 coronal tilt may correlate significantly to scoliosis and CBD. Coronal pelvic tilt may be just one of the compensations for the scoliosis deformity but effects CBD directly.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35795967
doi: 10.1111/os.13379
pmc: PMC9363746
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1846-1852Subventions
Organisme : National Key Research and Development Program Fund of China
ID : 2018YFB1307002
Organisme : National Key Research and Development Program Fund of China
ID : 2020YFC1107404
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Références
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Apr 20;34(9):949-54
pubmed: 19532003
Eur Spine J. 2016 Feb;25(2):532-48
pubmed: 25917822
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984 Sep;9(6):582-7
pubmed: 6495028
Gait Posture. 2021 Jul;88:203-209
pubmed: 34118744
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e36755
pubmed: 22792155
Global Spine J. 2018 Oct;8(7):690-697
pubmed: 30443478
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Jan 1;39(1):E1-6
pubmed: 24270931
Eur Spine J. 2012 Apr;21(4):725-32
pubmed: 22083838
Arch Physiother. 2015 Jul 08;5:4
pubmed: 29340173
Spine J. 2015 Dec 1;15(12):2493-502
pubmed: 26343243
Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2018 Jul;29(3):467-474
pubmed: 29933814
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 Sep;14(9):1002-11
pubmed: 2781406
Spine J. 2007 Jul-Aug;7(4):428-36
pubmed: 17630141
Clin Orthop Surg. 2017 Mar;9(1):57-62
pubmed: 28261428
Global Spine J. 2021 Jun;11(5):649-655
pubmed: 32875894
Eur Spine J. 2019 Jan;28(1):94-113
pubmed: 30460601
Spine Deform. 2015 Jul;3(4):360-366
pubmed: 27927482
Bone Joint J. 2016 Sep;98-B(9):1227-33
pubmed: 27587525
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 May;18(6):700-3
pubmed: 8516697
Eur Spine J. 2007 Oct;16(10):1579-86
pubmed: 17668251
Eur Spine J. 2020 Sep;29(9):2287-2294
pubmed: 32588234
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Apr 15;44(8):550-557
pubmed: 30312273
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Nov 1;27(21):2346-9
pubmed: 12438982
Eur Spine J. 2021 Nov;30(11):3233-3242
pubmed: 34175991
J Clin Neurosci. 2020 Nov;81:196-200
pubmed: 33222916
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 May 20;37(12):1077-82
pubmed: 22045006
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Feb;87(2):260-7
pubmed: 15687145
J Neurosurg Spine. 2020 Dec 4;:1-14
pubmed: 33276327