Loading…

How the spine differs in standing and in sitting – important considerations for correction of spinal deformity

Abstract Background context The current prevailing school of thought in spinal deformity surgery is to restore sagittal balance with reference to the alignment of the spine when the patient is standing. This strategy, however, likely accounts for increased rates of proximal junctional failure. Purpo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The spine journal 2017-06, Vol.17 (6), p.799-806
Main Authors: Hey, Dennis, MBBS (Sing), MRCS (Ire), MMED (Orth), MCI (Sing), FRCSEd (Orth), FAMS (Orth), Teo, Alex Quok An, MBBChir (Cantab), BA (Hons), MRCS (Eng), Tan, Kimberly-Anne, Ng, Nathaniel Li Wen, MBBS (Sing), Lau, Leok-Lim, MBBChir BA (Ire), MRCS (Edin), MMED (Orth), FRCSEd (Orth), Liu, Ka-Po Gabriel, MBBCh (Ire), MSc (Ire), FRCS (Ire), FRCSEd (Orth), Wong, Hee-Kit, MBBS (Sing), MMED (Surg), FRCS (Glas), MCh (Orth) Liv, FAMS (Orth)
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-fdaa9d57b70a224eed4c396f2611a2c781bc1314277a0374cb13132ea5f235eb3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-fdaa9d57b70a224eed4c396f2611a2c781bc1314277a0374cb13132ea5f235eb3
container_end_page 806
container_issue 6
container_start_page 799
container_title The spine journal
container_volume 17
creator Hey, Dennis, MBBS (Sing), MRCS (Ire), MMED (Orth), MCI (Sing), FRCSEd (Orth), FAMS (Orth)
Teo, Alex Quok An, MBBChir (Cantab), BA (Hons), MRCS (Eng)
Tan, Kimberly-Anne
Ng, Nathaniel Li Wen, MBBS (Sing)
Lau, Leok-Lim, MBBChir BA (Ire), MRCS (Edin), MMED (Orth), FRCSEd (Orth)
Liu, Ka-Po Gabriel, MBBCh (Ire), MSc (Ire), FRCS (Ire), FRCSEd (Orth)
Wong, Hee-Kit, MBBS (Sing), MMED (Surg), FRCS (Glas), MCh (Orth) Liv, FAMS (Orth)
description Abstract Background context The current prevailing school of thought in spinal deformity surgery is to restore sagittal balance with reference to the alignment of the spine when the patient is standing. This strategy, however, likely accounts for increased rates of proximal junctional failure. Purpose To investigate the differences between the spine in standing and sitting positions as these may elucidate reasons for deformity correction failure. Study Design/Setting A prospective, comparative study of 58 healthy patients presenting to a tertiary hospital over a 6-month period. Patient sample All patients presenting with a less than 3-month history of first episode lower back pain were included. Patients who had radicular symptoms, red flag symptoms, previous spine surgery or visible spinal deformity during forward bending test were excluded. Pregnant patients were also excluded. Outcome measures Radiographic measurements collected include sagittal vertical axis (SVA), lumbar lordosis (LL), thoracolumbar angle (TL), thoracic kyphosis (TK), cervical lordosis (CL), pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic tilt (PT). The sagittal apex and end vertebrae of all radiographs were also recorded. Methods Basic demographic data (age, gender and ethnicity) was recorded. Lateral standing and sitting radiographs were obtained using EOS® technology. Statistical analysis was performed to compare standing and sitting parameters using Chi-square tests for categorical variables and paired t-tests for continuous variables. Results Taking the standing position as the reference point, forward displacement of the SVA occurred during sitting by a mean of 6.39±3.87cm (p
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.03.056
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826664089</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1529943016300286</els_id><sourcerecordid>1826664089</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-fdaa9d57b70a224eed4c396f2611a2c781bc1314277a0374cb13132ea5f235eb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUctu1TAQtRCIPv8AVV6ySepHYicbJFRBW6lSF8Dacuwx-JLEwfYtujv-gT_kS-rc27Jgw2rmzJw5ozmD0BtKakqouNzUafEzQM0KqgmvSSteoGPaya6igrOXJW9ZX_UNJ0foJKUNIaSTlL1GR0wSwfu-P0bLTfiJ8zfAezFsvXMQE_YzTlnP1s9fcQl77HNe4Z9fv7GflhBLP2MT5uQtRJ19ybALsZRiBLNiHNxeV4_YQmlNPu_O0CunxwTnT_EUffn44fPVTXV3f3179f6uMk3Hc-Ws1r1t5SCJZqwBsI3hvXBMUKqZkR0dDOW0YVJqwmVjhoI4A906xlsY-Cl6e9BdYvixhZTV5JOBcdQzhG1StGNCiIZ0faE2B6qJIaUITi3RTzruFCVq9Vpt1MFrtXqtCFfF6zJ28bRhO0xg_w49m1sI7w4EKHc-eIgqGQ-zAetXg5QN_n8b_hUwo5-90eN32EHahG0s3pZbVGKKqE_rv9d3l_cTwjrBHwEQHqk2</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1826664089</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How the spine differs in standing and in sitting – important considerations for correction of spinal deformity</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Hey, Dennis, MBBS (Sing), MRCS (Ire), MMED (Orth), MCI (Sing), FRCSEd (Orth), FAMS (Orth) ; Teo, Alex Quok An, MBBChir (Cantab), BA (Hons), MRCS (Eng) ; Tan, Kimberly-Anne ; Ng, Nathaniel Li Wen, MBBS (Sing) ; Lau, Leok-Lim, MBBChir BA (Ire), MRCS (Edin), MMED (Orth), FRCSEd (Orth) ; Liu, Ka-Po Gabriel, MBBCh (Ire), MSc (Ire), FRCS (Ire), FRCSEd (Orth) ; Wong, Hee-Kit, MBBS (Sing), MMED (Surg), FRCS (Glas), MCh (Orth) Liv, FAMS (Orth)</creator><creatorcontrib>Hey, Dennis, MBBS (Sing), MRCS (Ire), MMED (Orth), MCI (Sing), FRCSEd (Orth), FAMS (Orth) ; Teo, Alex Quok An, MBBChir (Cantab), BA (Hons), MRCS (Eng) ; Tan, Kimberly-Anne ; Ng, Nathaniel Li Wen, MBBS (Sing) ; Lau, Leok-Lim, MBBChir BA (Ire), MRCS (Edin), MMED (Orth), FRCSEd (Orth) ; Liu, Ka-Po Gabriel, MBBCh (Ire), MSc (Ire), FRCS (Ire), FRCSEd (Orth) ; Wong, Hee-Kit, MBBS (Sing), MMED (Surg), FRCS (Glas), MCh (Orth) Liv, FAMS (Orth)</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[Abstract Background context The current prevailing school of thought in spinal deformity surgery is to restore sagittal balance with reference to the alignment of the spine when the patient is standing. This strategy, however, likely accounts for increased rates of proximal junctional failure. Purpose To investigate the differences between the spine in standing and sitting positions as these may elucidate reasons for deformity correction failure. Study Design/Setting A prospective, comparative study of 58 healthy patients presenting to a tertiary hospital over a 6-month period. Patient sample All patients presenting with a less than 3-month history of first episode lower back pain were included. Patients who had radicular symptoms, red flag symptoms, previous spine surgery or visible spinal deformity during forward bending test were excluded. Pregnant patients were also excluded. Outcome measures Radiographic measurements collected include sagittal vertical axis (SVA), lumbar lordosis (LL), thoracolumbar angle (TL), thoracic kyphosis (TK), cervical lordosis (CL), pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic tilt (PT). The sagittal apex and end vertebrae of all radiographs were also recorded. Methods Basic demographic data (age, gender and ethnicity) was recorded. Lateral standing and sitting radiographs were obtained using EOS® technology. Statistical analysis was performed to compare standing and sitting parameters using Chi-square tests for categorical variables and paired t-tests for continuous variables. Results Taking the standing position as the reference point, forward displacement of the SVA occurred during sitting by a mean of 6.39±3.87cm (p<0.001). This was accompanied by a reduction of LL and TK by a mean of 24.63±12.70° (p <0.001) and 8.56±7.21°(p<0.001) respectively. The TL became more lordotic by a mean of 3.25±7.30° (p< 0.001). CL only reached borderline significance (p=0.047) for increased lordosis by a mean of 3.45±12.92°. PT also increased by 50% (p<0.001). Despite relatively constant end vertebrae, the apex vertebra moved inferiorly for the thoracic curve (p<0.006) and superiorly for the lumbar curve (p<0.001) by approximately one vertebral level each. Conclusions Sagittal spinal alignment changes significantly between standing and sitting positions. Understanding these differences is crucial to avoid overcorrection of LL, which may occur if deformity correction is based solely on the spine's standing sagittal profile.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 1529-9430</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-1632</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.03.056</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27063999</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Female ; Humans ; Kyphosis - diagnostic imaging ; Kyphosis - surgery ; Lordosis - diagnostic imaging ; Lordosis - surgery ; Lumbar lordosis ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Orthopedics ; Patient Positioning ; Posture ; Proximal junctional failure ; Radiography - methods ; Radiography - standards ; Reference Standards ; Sagittal balance ; Sitting ; Spinal deformity surgery ; Standing</subject><ispartof>The spine journal, 2017-06, Vol.17 (6), p.799-806</ispartof><rights>2016 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-fdaa9d57b70a224eed4c396f2611a2c781bc1314277a0374cb13132ea5f235eb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-fdaa9d57b70a224eed4c396f2611a2c781bc1314277a0374cb13132ea5f235eb3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1124-8541 ; 0000-0003-3512-2844 ; 0000-0002-0200-3331</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27063999$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hey, Dennis, MBBS (Sing), MRCS (Ire), MMED (Orth), MCI (Sing), FRCSEd (Orth), FAMS (Orth)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teo, Alex Quok An, MBBChir (Cantab), BA (Hons), MRCS (Eng)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Kimberly-Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ng, Nathaniel Li Wen, MBBS (Sing)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lau, Leok-Lim, MBBChir BA (Ire), MRCS (Edin), MMED (Orth), FRCSEd (Orth)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Ka-Po Gabriel, MBBCh (Ire), MSc (Ire), FRCS (Ire), FRCSEd (Orth)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Hee-Kit, MBBS (Sing), MMED (Surg), FRCS (Glas), MCh (Orth) Liv, FAMS (Orth)</creatorcontrib><title>How the spine differs in standing and in sitting – important considerations for correction of spinal deformity</title><title>The spine journal</title><addtitle>Spine J</addtitle><description><![CDATA[Abstract Background context The current prevailing school of thought in spinal deformity surgery is to restore sagittal balance with reference to the alignment of the spine when the patient is standing. This strategy, however, likely accounts for increased rates of proximal junctional failure. Purpose To investigate the differences between the spine in standing and sitting positions as these may elucidate reasons for deformity correction failure. Study Design/Setting A prospective, comparative study of 58 healthy patients presenting to a tertiary hospital over a 6-month period. Patient sample All patients presenting with a less than 3-month history of first episode lower back pain were included. Patients who had radicular symptoms, red flag symptoms, previous spine surgery or visible spinal deformity during forward bending test were excluded. Pregnant patients were also excluded. Outcome measures Radiographic measurements collected include sagittal vertical axis (SVA), lumbar lordosis (LL), thoracolumbar angle (TL), thoracic kyphosis (TK), cervical lordosis (CL), pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic tilt (PT). The sagittal apex and end vertebrae of all radiographs were also recorded. Methods Basic demographic data (age, gender and ethnicity) was recorded. Lateral standing and sitting radiographs were obtained using EOS® technology. Statistical analysis was performed to compare standing and sitting parameters using Chi-square tests for categorical variables and paired t-tests for continuous variables. Results Taking the standing position as the reference point, forward displacement of the SVA occurred during sitting by a mean of 6.39±3.87cm (p<0.001). This was accompanied by a reduction of LL and TK by a mean of 24.63±12.70° (p <0.001) and 8.56±7.21°(p<0.001) respectively. The TL became more lordotic by a mean of 3.25±7.30° (p< 0.001). CL only reached borderline significance (p=0.047) for increased lordosis by a mean of 3.45±12.92°. PT also increased by 50% (p<0.001). Despite relatively constant end vertebrae, the apex vertebra moved inferiorly for the thoracic curve (p<0.006) and superiorly for the lumbar curve (p<0.001) by approximately one vertebral level each. Conclusions Sagittal spinal alignment changes significantly between standing and sitting positions. Understanding these differences is crucial to avoid overcorrection of LL, which may occur if deformity correction is based solely on the spine's standing sagittal profile.]]></description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kyphosis - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Kyphosis - surgery</subject><subject>Lordosis - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Lordosis - surgery</subject><subject>Lumbar lordosis</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Patient Positioning</subject><subject>Posture</subject><subject>Proximal junctional failure</subject><subject>Radiography - methods</subject><subject>Radiography - standards</subject><subject>Reference Standards</subject><subject>Sagittal balance</subject><subject>Sitting</subject><subject>Spinal deformity surgery</subject><subject>Standing</subject><issn>1529-9430</issn><issn>1878-1632</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFUctu1TAQtRCIPv8AVV6ySepHYicbJFRBW6lSF8Dacuwx-JLEwfYtujv-gT_kS-rc27Jgw2rmzJw5ozmD0BtKakqouNzUafEzQM0KqgmvSSteoGPaya6igrOXJW9ZX_UNJ0foJKUNIaSTlL1GR0wSwfu-P0bLTfiJ8zfAezFsvXMQE_YzTlnP1s9fcQl77HNe4Z9fv7GflhBLP2MT5uQtRJ19ybALsZRiBLNiHNxeV4_YQmlNPu_O0CunxwTnT_EUffn44fPVTXV3f3179f6uMk3Hc-Ws1r1t5SCJZqwBsI3hvXBMUKqZkR0dDOW0YVJqwmVjhoI4A906xlsY-Cl6e9BdYvixhZTV5JOBcdQzhG1StGNCiIZ0faE2B6qJIaUITi3RTzruFCVq9Vpt1MFrtXqtCFfF6zJ28bRhO0xg_w49m1sI7w4EKHc-eIgqGQ-zAetXg5QN_n8b_hUwo5-90eN32EHahG0s3pZbVGKKqE_rv9d3l_cTwjrBHwEQHqk2</recordid><startdate>20170601</startdate><enddate>20170601</enddate><creator>Hey, Dennis, MBBS (Sing), MRCS (Ire), MMED (Orth), MCI (Sing), FRCSEd (Orth), FAMS (Orth)</creator><creator>Teo, Alex Quok An, MBBChir (Cantab), BA (Hons), MRCS (Eng)</creator><creator>Tan, Kimberly-Anne</creator><creator>Ng, Nathaniel Li Wen, MBBS (Sing)</creator><creator>Lau, Leok-Lim, MBBChir BA (Ire), MRCS (Edin), MMED (Orth), FRCSEd (Orth)</creator><creator>Liu, Ka-Po Gabriel, MBBCh (Ire), MSc (Ire), FRCS (Ire), FRCSEd (Orth)</creator><creator>Wong, Hee-Kit, MBBS (Sing), MMED (Surg), FRCS (Glas), MCh (Orth) Liv, FAMS (Orth)</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1124-8541</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3512-2844</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0200-3331</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170601</creationdate><title>How the spine differs in standing and in sitting – important considerations for correction of spinal deformity</title><author>Hey, Dennis, MBBS (Sing), MRCS (Ire), MMED (Orth), MCI (Sing), FRCSEd (Orth), FAMS (Orth) ; Teo, Alex Quok An, MBBChir (Cantab), BA (Hons), MRCS (Eng) ; Tan, Kimberly-Anne ; Ng, Nathaniel Li Wen, MBBS (Sing) ; Lau, Leok-Lim, MBBChir BA (Ire), MRCS (Edin), MMED (Orth), FRCSEd (Orth) ; Liu, Ka-Po Gabriel, MBBCh (Ire), MSc (Ire), FRCS (Ire), FRCSEd (Orth) ; Wong, Hee-Kit, MBBS (Sing), MMED (Surg), FRCS (Glas), MCh (Orth) Liv, FAMS (Orth)</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-fdaa9d57b70a224eed4c396f2611a2c781bc1314277a0374cb13132ea5f235eb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kyphosis - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Kyphosis - surgery</topic><topic>Lordosis - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Lordosis - surgery</topic><topic>Lumbar lordosis</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Patient Positioning</topic><topic>Posture</topic><topic>Proximal junctional failure</topic><topic>Radiography - methods</topic><topic>Radiography - standards</topic><topic>Reference Standards</topic><topic>Sagittal balance</topic><topic>Sitting</topic><topic>Spinal deformity surgery</topic><topic>Standing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hey, Dennis, MBBS (Sing), MRCS (Ire), MMED (Orth), MCI (Sing), FRCSEd (Orth), FAMS (Orth)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teo, Alex Quok An, MBBChir (Cantab), BA (Hons), MRCS (Eng)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Kimberly-Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ng, Nathaniel Li Wen, MBBS (Sing)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lau, Leok-Lim, MBBChir BA (Ire), MRCS (Edin), MMED (Orth), FRCSEd (Orth)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Ka-Po Gabriel, MBBCh (Ire), MSc (Ire), FRCS (Ire), FRCSEd (Orth)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Hee-Kit, MBBS (Sing), MMED (Surg), FRCS (Glas), MCh (Orth) Liv, FAMS (Orth)</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The spine journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hey, Dennis, MBBS (Sing), MRCS (Ire), MMED (Orth), MCI (Sing), FRCSEd (Orth), FAMS (Orth)</au><au>Teo, Alex Quok An, MBBChir (Cantab), BA (Hons), MRCS (Eng)</au><au>Tan, Kimberly-Anne</au><au>Ng, Nathaniel Li Wen, MBBS (Sing)</au><au>Lau, Leok-Lim, MBBChir BA (Ire), MRCS (Edin), MMED (Orth), FRCSEd (Orth)</au><au>Liu, Ka-Po Gabriel, MBBCh (Ire), MSc (Ire), FRCS (Ire), FRCSEd (Orth)</au><au>Wong, Hee-Kit, MBBS (Sing), MMED (Surg), FRCS (Glas), MCh (Orth) Liv, FAMS (Orth)</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How the spine differs in standing and in sitting – important considerations for correction of spinal deformity</atitle><jtitle>The spine journal</jtitle><addtitle>Spine J</addtitle><date>2017-06-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>799</spage><epage>806</epage><pages>799-806</pages><issn>1529-9430</issn><eissn>1878-1632</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[Abstract Background context The current prevailing school of thought in spinal deformity surgery is to restore sagittal balance with reference to the alignment of the spine when the patient is standing. This strategy, however, likely accounts for increased rates of proximal junctional failure. Purpose To investigate the differences between the spine in standing and sitting positions as these may elucidate reasons for deformity correction failure. Study Design/Setting A prospective, comparative study of 58 healthy patients presenting to a tertiary hospital over a 6-month period. Patient sample All patients presenting with a less than 3-month history of first episode lower back pain were included. Patients who had radicular symptoms, red flag symptoms, previous spine surgery or visible spinal deformity during forward bending test were excluded. Pregnant patients were also excluded. Outcome measures Radiographic measurements collected include sagittal vertical axis (SVA), lumbar lordosis (LL), thoracolumbar angle (TL), thoracic kyphosis (TK), cervical lordosis (CL), pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic tilt (PT). The sagittal apex and end vertebrae of all radiographs were also recorded. Methods Basic demographic data (age, gender and ethnicity) was recorded. Lateral standing and sitting radiographs were obtained using EOS® technology. Statistical analysis was performed to compare standing and sitting parameters using Chi-square tests for categorical variables and paired t-tests for continuous variables. Results Taking the standing position as the reference point, forward displacement of the SVA occurred during sitting by a mean of 6.39±3.87cm (p<0.001). This was accompanied by a reduction of LL and TK by a mean of 24.63±12.70° (p <0.001) and 8.56±7.21°(p<0.001) respectively. The TL became more lordotic by a mean of 3.25±7.30° (p< 0.001). CL only reached borderline significance (p=0.047) for increased lordosis by a mean of 3.45±12.92°. PT also increased by 50% (p<0.001). Despite relatively constant end vertebrae, the apex vertebra moved inferiorly for the thoracic curve (p<0.006) and superiorly for the lumbar curve (p<0.001) by approximately one vertebral level each. Conclusions Sagittal spinal alignment changes significantly between standing and sitting positions. Understanding these differences is crucial to avoid overcorrection of LL, which may occur if deformity correction is based solely on the spine's standing sagittal profile.]]></abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27063999</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.spinee.2016.03.056</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1124-8541</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3512-2844</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0200-3331</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1529-9430
ispartof The spine journal, 2017-06, Vol.17 (6), p.799-806
issn 1529-9430
1878-1632
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826664089
source ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Adult
Female
Humans
Kyphosis - diagnostic imaging
Kyphosis - surgery
Lordosis - diagnostic imaging
Lordosis - surgery
Lumbar lordosis
Male
Middle Aged
Orthopedics
Patient Positioning
Posture
Proximal junctional failure
Radiography - methods
Radiography - standards
Reference Standards
Sagittal balance
Sitting
Spinal deformity surgery
Standing
title How the spine differs in standing and in sitting – important considerations for correction of spinal deformity
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T18%3A36%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20the%20spine%20differs%20in%20standing%20and%20in%20sitting%20%E2%80%93%20important%20considerations%20for%20correction%20of%20spinal%20deformity&rft.jtitle=The%20spine%20journal&rft.au=Hey,%20Dennis,%20MBBS%20(Sing),%20MRCS%20(Ire),%20MMED%20(Orth),%20MCI%20(Sing),%20FRCSEd%20(Orth),%20FAMS%20(Orth)&rft.date=2017-06-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=799&rft.epage=806&rft.pages=799-806&rft.issn=1529-9430&rft.eissn=1878-1632&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.03.056&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1826664089%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-fdaa9d57b70a224eed4c396f2611a2c781bc1314277a0374cb13132ea5f235eb3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1826664089&rft_id=info:pmid/27063999&rfr_iscdi=true