Sagittal balance of the cervical spine in children older than 4 years: what is the norm?
https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2022.4.19-29
Abstract
Objective. To search for normal parameters of the sagittal balance of the cervical spine in children, to analyze their dynamics in different periods of childhood, and to compare them with the norm given for the adult population.
Material and Methods. To assess the parameters of the sagittal balance of the cervical spine, radiographs were selected that were initially evaluated by radiologists as a variant of the norm. The final sample consisted of 73 radiographs of 44 girls and 29 boys aged 4 to 17 years.
Digital radiographs were used to evaluate the 10 most common parameters presented in publications: the angular values of Oc–C2, C2–C7, C7S, Th1S, TIA, NT, CeT, CrT, SCA, as well as the cSVA distance measured in mm. The measurements were carried out independently by 3 specialists working with pediatric patients: an orthopedic surgeon (experience up to 5 years), an orthopedic surgeon (experience more than 15 years), and a radiologist specializing in skeletal pathology (experience more than 5 years). The obtained results were
subjected to statistical processing.
Results. Using multivariate analysis of variance, the presence of a statistically significant difference in age was revealed only for cSVA, gender differences were revealed for 6 out of 10 parameters. Most of the parameters showed good and satisfactory agreement between specialists.
A very strong correlation was established between the parameters C7S and Th1S, which correlates with the adjacent position of the vertebrae.
The C2–C7 and SCA parameters have a strong positive correlation with each other, the CeT parameter is strongly negatively correlated with both of them. The TIA has a strong negative correlation with SCA and a moderate positive correlation with NT, CeT, C7S, and Th1S. The cSVA and CrT values strongly correlate only with each other. Comparison of the obtained parameters of the sagittal balance
in children with the data in scientific publications on the adult population revealed statistically significant differences in the values of 6 out of 10 of them.
Conclusion. The age norms of the main parameters of the sagittal balance for children, and their gender differences were determined. Their difference from the normal parameters of the adult population was established, which requires that these features be taken into account
in clinical practice.
About the Authors
D. A. Glukhov
St. Petersburg Research Institute of Phthisiopulmonology
32 Politekhnicheskaya str., St. Petersburg, 194064, Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
orthopedic surgeon, junior researcher
V. I. Zorin
H. Turner National Medical Research Center for Сhildren’s Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery;
North-Western State Medical University n.a. I.I. Mechnikov
64–68 Parkovaya str., Pushkin, St. Petersburg, 196603, Russia;
41 Kirochnaya str., St. Petersburg, 191015, Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
MD, PhD, orthopedic surgeon, associate professor, deputy director for scientific and educational work;
associate professor of Pediatric Surgery Department
Ya. A. Maltseva
H. Turner National Medical Research Center for Сhildren’s Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery
64–68 Parkovaya str., Pushkin, St. Petersburg, Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
radiologist
A. Yu. Mushkin
St. Petersburg Research Institute of Phthisiopulmonology;
Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University
32 Politekhnicheskaya str., St. Petersburg, 194064, Russia;
6–8 L’va Tolstogo str., St. Petersburg, 197022, Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
DMSc, Prof., Сhief Researcher, Head of the Scientific and Clinical Center for Spinal Pathology;
Professor of the Department of Traumatology and Orthopedics
References
1. Dubousset J. Three-dimensional analysis of the scoliotic deformity. In: Weinstein SL, ed. The Pediatric Spine: Principles and Practice. New York: Raven Press, 1994:479–496.
2. Le Huec JC, Thompson W, Mohsinaly Y, Barrey C, Faundez A. Sagittal balance of the spine. Eur Spine J. 2019;28:1889–1905. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-019-06083-1.
3. Abelin-Genevois K. Sagittal balance of the spine. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021;107(1S):102769. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.102769.
4. Бортулев П.И., Виссарионов С.В., Басков В.Е., Овечкина А.В., Барсуков Д.Б., Поздникин И.Ю. Клинико-рентгенологические показатели позвоночно-тазовых соотношений у детей с диспластическим подвывихом бедра // Травматология и ортопедия России. 2018. Т. 24. № 3. С. 74–82. [Bortulev PI, Vissarionov SV, Baskov VE, Ovechkina AV, Barsukov DB, Pozdnikin IYu. Clinical and roentgenological criteria of spine-pelvis ratios in children with dysplastic femur subluxation. Travmatologiya i ortopediya Rossii [Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia]. 2018;24(3):74–82]. DOI: 10.21823/2311-2905-2018-24-3-74-82.
5. Alijani B, Rasoulian J. The sagittal balance of the cervical spine: radiographic analysis of interdependence between the occipitocervical and spinopelvic alignment. Asian Spine J. 2020;14:287–297. DOI: 10.31616/asj.2019.0165.
6. Amabile C, Le Huec JC, Skalli W. Invariance of head-pelvis alignment and compensatory mechanisms for asymptomatic adults older than 49 years. Eur Spine J. 2018;27:458–466. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4830-8.
7. Ling FP, Chevillotte T, Leglise A, Thompson W, Bouthors C, Le Huec JC. Which parameters are relevant in sagittal balance analysis of the cervical spine? A literature review. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(Suppl 1):8–15. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-5462-y.
8. Vibhu Krishnan V, Surabhi S. Cervical sagittal alignment parameters-what do we know so far? A mini-review. Open Access J Surg. 2018;9:555762. DOI: 10.19080/OAJS.2018.09.555762.
9. Tan LA, Riew KD, Traynelis VC. Cervical spine deformity - Part 1: Biomechanics, radiographic parameters, and classification. Neurosurgery. 2017;81:197–203. DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyx249.
10. Ozdogan S, Koken M, Duzkalir HG, Duzkalir AH, Yaltirik CK, Ozturk E, Savrunlu EC, Civelek E, Kabatas S. Brief review on fundamentals of cervical spine alignment. J Turk Spinal Surg 2017;28:53–60.
11. Abelin-Genevois K, Idjerouidene A, Roussouly P, Vital JM, Garin C. Cervical spine alignment in the pediatric population: a radiographic normative study of 150 asymptomatic patients. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:1442–1448. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-3150-5.
12. Le Huec JC, Richards J, Tsoupras A, Price R, Leglise A, Faundez AA. The mechanism in junctional failure of thoraco-lumbar fusions. Part I: Biomechanical analysis of mechanisms responsible of vertebral overstress and description of the cervical inclination angle (CIA). Eur Spine J. 2018;27(Suppl 1):129–138. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5425-8.
13. Lee SH, Kim KT, Seo EM, Suk KS, Kwack YH, Son ES. The influence of thoracic inlet alignment on the craniocervical sagittal balance in asymptomatic adults. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25:E41–E47. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182396301.
14. Scheer JK, Tang JA, Smith JS, Acosta FL Jr, Protopsaltis TS, Blondel B, Bess S, Shaffrey CI, Deviren V, Lafage V, Schwab F, Ames CP. Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: a review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19:141–159. DOI: 10.3171/2013.4.SPINE12838.
15. Ohara A, Miyamoto K, Naganawa T, Matsumoto K, Shimizu K. Reliabilities of and correlations among five standard methods of assessing the sagittal alignment of the cervical spine. Spine. 2006;31:2585–2592. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000240656.79060.18.
16. Patwardhan AG, Khayatzadeh S, Havey RM, Voronov LI, Smith ZA, Kalmanson O, Ghanayem AJ, Sears W. Cervical sagittal balance: a biomechanical perspective can help clinical practice. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(Suppl 1):25–38. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5367-1.
17. Janusz P, Tyrakowski M, Yu H, Siemionow K. Reliability of cervical lordosis measurement techniques on long-cassette radiographs. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:3596–3601. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4345-8.
18. Ye IB, Tang R, Cheung ZB, White SJW, Cho SK. Can C7 slope be used as a substitute for T1 slope? A radiographic analysis. Global Spine J. 2020;10:148–152. DOI: 10.1177/2192568219846909.
19. Le Huec JC, Demezon H, Aunoble S. Sagittal parameters of global cervical balance using EOS imaging: normative values from a prospective cohort of asymptomatic volunteers. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:63–71. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3632-0.
20. Janusz P, Tyrakowski M, Glowka P, Offoha R, Siemionow K. Influence of cervical spine position on the radiographic parameters of the thoracic inlet alignment. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:2880–2884. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4023-x.
21. Lee SH, Hyun SJ, Jain A. Cervical sagittal alignment: literature review and future directions. Neurospine. 2020;17:478–496. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2040392.196.
22. Mac-Thiong JM, Berthonnaud E, Dimar JR 2nd, Betz RR, Labelle H. Sagittal alignment of the spine and pelvis during growth. Spine. 2004;29:1642–1647. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000132312.78469.7b.
23. Cil A, Yazici M, Uzumcugil A, Kandemir U, Alanay A, Alanay Y, Acaroglu RE, Surat A. The evolution of sagittal segmental alignment of the spine during childhood. Spine. 2005;30:93–100. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000149074.21550.32.
24. Lee CS, Noh H, Lee DH, Hwang CJ, Kim H, Cho SK. Analysis of sagittal spinal alignment in 181 asymptomatic children. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25:E259–E263. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318261f346.
25. Kasai T, Ikata T, Katoh S, Miyake R, Tsubo M. Growth of the cervical spine with special reference to its lordosis and mobility. Spine. 1996;21:2067–2073. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199609150-00003.
26. Been E, Shefi S, Soudack M. Cervical lordosis: the effect of age and gender. Spine J. 2017;17:880–888. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.02.007
Review
For citations:
Glukhov D.A., Zorin V.I., Maltseva Ya.A., Mushkin A.Yu. Sagittal balance of the cervical spine in children older than 4 years: what is the norm? Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika). 2022;19(4):19-29. https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2022.4.19-29
Email this article 