Impact of pelvic anteversion on spinopelvic alignment in an asymptomatic population: a dynamic perspective of standing and sitting

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

A subgroup of patients with pelvic anteversion can present with an unusually large degree of lumbar lordosis (LL), a highly sloped sacrum, and a relatively small pelvic incidence (PI). Prior to lumbar surgery, it is can be important to consider such unique sagittal alignment. However, until now, there has been a lack of a predictive model considering different pelvic alignments. Furthermore, the dynamic characteristics of an anteverted pelvis (AP) subgroup have also been unclear.

PURPOSE

To build linear predictive formulas for LL that take pelvic anteversion into consideration and to explore the dynamic characteristics of an AP subgroup.

STUDY DESIGN

Monocentric, cross-sectional study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

565 asymptomatic Chinese men and women between the ages of 18 and 80 years.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Sagittal parameters including LL, lumbar lordosis minus thoracic kyphosis (LL-TK), (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), sacral slope (SS), sacral slope divided by pelvic incidence (SS/PI), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), thoracic kyphosis (TK), and T1 (first thoracic vertebra) pelvic angle (TPA) were measured on whole spine radiographs obtained with participants in standing and sitting positions.

METHODS

All participants underwent radiography in the standing position; 235 of them underwent additional radiography in the sitting position to allow measurement of sagittal parameters. The participants with pelvic anteversion were placed in an AP (anteverted pelvis) group. Sagittal parameters were compared between the AP group and the non-AP group, and predictive formulas for LL based on PI were created in both groups. In addition, changes in sagittal parameters from standing to sitting were compared in the AP group and a PI-matched control group.

RESULTS

Of the 565 participants, 171 (30.3%) had pelvic anteversion. In comparison with the non-AP group, the AP group presented with larger LL, a larger SS, and a smaller PT, with relatively small PI. The predictive formulas for LL were LL = 0.60° × PI + 21.60° (R2 = 0.268; P < 0.001) in the whole cohort, LL = 0. 83 × PI + 18.75° (R2 = 0.427; P < 0.001) in AP group, and LL = 0.79° × PI + 9.66° (R2 = 0.451; P < 0.001) in the non-AP group. In moving from standing to sitting, the AP group presented with a larger decrease in SS and LL compared with the control group, indicating different patterns of spinopelvic motion.

CONCLUSIONS

In the cohort examined, 30.3% present with pelvic anteversion. Those with AP present with unique characteristics of spinopelvic alignment. In moving from standing to sitting, they exhibit different patterns of spinopelvic motion. We found that identifying the degree of anteversion in each person improves the accuracy of linear models for predicting the degree of LL, which in turn can make plans for spine surgery more accurate.