» Articles » PMID: 28240654

Lumbar Spine Alignment in Six Common Postures: An ROM Analysis With Implications for Deformity Correction

Overview
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2017 Feb 28
PMID 28240654
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Study Design: A cross-sectional study of prospectively collected data.

Objective: To compare lumbar spine alignment in six common postures, and estimate loss in range of motion (ROM) relative to standing.

Summary Of Background Data: Ideal position for fusion of lumbar spine remains unknown. Although surgical fusion is necessary for deformity correction and symptom relief, the final position in which the vertebrae are immobilized should provide maximum residual function.

Methods: Data were collected prospectively from 70 patients with low back pain recruited over a year. All subjects had x-rays performed in slump sitting, forward bending, supine, half squatting, standing, and backward bending postures. ROM quantified in terms of sagittal global and segmental Cobb angles was measured from L1 to S1. Loss of ROM relative to standing was calculated for each posture. Analysis of variance and unpaired t tests were used to identify differences in alignment between postures.

Results: Slump sitting gives the greatest lumbar flexion followed by forward bending, and supine postures (P < 0.001). Backward bending produces greater lumbar extension than standing (P = 0.035). Half-squatting and standing postures were not significantly different (P = 0.938). For all postures, L4-5 and L5-S1 segments remained in lordosis, with L4-5 having greater ROM than L5-S1. L1-2 turns kyphotic in lying supine, L2-3 at forward bending, and L3-4 at slump sitting in the form of a "kyphosing cascade." Should the entire lumbar spine be fused in standing position from L1-S1, there would likely be a mean loss of 47.6° of lumbar flexion and 5.9° of lumbar extension.

Conclusion: The present study demonstrates the extent of flexibility required of the lumbar spine in assuming various postures. It also enables comparison of the differences in degree of motion occurring in the lumbar spine, both across postures and across segments. Significant loss in ROM, particularly flexion, is anticipated with fusion modeled after the lordotic standing lumbar spine.

Level Of Evidence: 2.

Citing Articles

How Does the Slump Sitting Radiograph Increase Proportion of Segmental Instability and Kyphotic Alignment of Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis?.

Zhou Q, Sun X, Wang B, Zhu Z, Qiu Y Orthop Surg. 2024; 16(3):551-558.

PMID: 38214017 PMC: 10925499. DOI: 10.1111/os.13962.


Risk Factors for Distal Junctional Problems Following Long Instrumented Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis: Are they Related to the Paraspinal Muscles.

Liu Y, Yuan L, Zeng Y, Li W Orthop Surg. 2023; 15(12):3055-3064.

PMID: 37749777 PMC: 10694019. DOI: 10.1111/os.13878.


Utility of Seated Lateral Radiographs in the Diagnosis and Classification of Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

Issa T, Lee Y, Berthiaume E, Lambrechts M, Zaworski C, Qadiri Q Asian Spine J. 2023; 17(4):721-728.

PMID: 37408288 PMC: 10460653. DOI: 10.31616/asj.2022.0443.


Titanium‑coated polyetheretherketone cages vs. polyetheretherketone cages in lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta‑analysis.

Li S, Li X, Bai X, Wang Y, Han P, Li H Exp Ther Med. 2023; 25(6):305.

PMID: 37229321 PMC: 10203915. DOI: 10.3892/etm.2023.12004.


Using Lordotic Cages at the L5-S1 Level Does Not Guarantee the Improvement of Sagittal Alignment in Patients Who Underwent Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Cho J, Hwang C, Lee D, Lee C Asian Spine J. 2023; 17(3):477-484.

PMID: 36775831 PMC: 10300896. DOI: 10.31616/asj.2022.0228.