» Articles » PMID: 38417069

Characteristics of Spinal Morphology According to the "Current" and "Theoretical" Roussouly Classification Systems in a Diverse, Asymptomatic Cohort: Multi-Ethnic Alignment Normative Study (MEANS)

Abstract

Study Design: Cross-sectional cohort study.

Objective: To classify spinal morphology using the "current" and "theoretical" Roussouly systems and assess sagittal alignment in an asymptomatic cohort.

Methods: 467 asymptomatic volunteers were recruited from 5 countries. Radiographic parameters were measured via the EOS imaging system. "Current" and "theoretical" Roussouly classification was assigned with sagittal whole spine imaging using sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI), and the lumbar apex. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare subject characteristics across Roussouly types, followed by post hoc Bonferroni correction.

Results: Volunteers were categorized into 4 groups (Types 1-4) and 1 subgroup (Type 3 AP) using the "current" and "theoretical" Roussouly systems. The mean PI in "current" Roussouly groups was 40.8° (Type 1), 43.6° (Type 2), 52.4° (Type 3), 62.4° (Type 4), and 43.7° (Type 3AP). The mean PI in "theoretical" Roussouly groups was 36.5° (Type 1), 39.1°(Type 2), 52.5° (Type 3), 67.3° (Type 4), and 51.0° (Type 3AP). The difference in PI between "current" and "theoretical" Roussouly types was significant for Type 1 ( = .02), Type 2 ( < .001), Type 4 ( < .001), and Type 3AP ( < .001). 34.7% of subjects had a "current" Roussouly type different from the "theoretical" type. Type 3 theoretical shape had the most frequent mismatch, constituting 61.1% of the mismatched subjects. 51.5% of mismatched Type 3 become "current" Type 4.

Conclusion: The distribution of Roussouly types differs depending on whether the "current" or "theoretical" classification are employed. A sizeable proportion of volunteers exhibited current and theoretical type mismatch, highlighting the need to interpret sagittal alignment cautiously when utilizing the Roussouly system.

References
1.
Baum G, Ha A, Cerpa M, Zuckerman S, Lin J, Menger R . Does the Global Alignment and Proportion score overestimate mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity correction?. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020; 34(1):96-102. DOI: 10.3171/2020.6.SPINE20538. View

2.
Laouissat F, Sebaaly A, Gehrchen M, Roussouly P . Classification of normal sagittal spine alignment: refounding the Roussouly classification. Eur Spine J. 2017; 27(8):2002-2011. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5111-x. View

3.
Barrey C, Jund J, Noseda O, Roussouly P . Sagittal balance of the pelvis-spine complex and lumbar degenerative diseases. A comparative study about 85 cases. Eur Spine J. 2007; 16(9):1459-67. PMC: 2200735. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-0294-6. View

4.
Sebaaly A, Gehrchen M, Silvestre C, Kharrat K, Johanning Bari T, Kreichati G . Mechanical complications in adult spinal deformity and the effect of restoring the spinal shapes according to the Roussouly classification: a multicentric study. Eur Spine J. 2019; 29(4):904-913. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-019-06253-1. View

5.
Schwab F, Blondel B, Bess S, Hostin R, Shaffrey C, Smith J . Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(13):E803-12. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318292b7b9. View