Radiographic Comparison between Cervical Spine Lateral and Whole-Spine Lateral Standing Radiographs

Sagittal Full-Spine vs. Sectional Cervical Lateral Radiographs: Are the Measurements of Cervical Alignment Interchangeable?

(1) Background: This study assessed the relationship between cervical spine parameters taken on standing full-spine lateral radiographic images compared to sectional lateral cervical radiographs. (2) Methods: Full-spine (FS) and sectional lateral cervical (LC) radiographs from four spine treatment facilities across the USA retrospectively provided data collected on 220 persons to assess the comparison of three sagittal cervical radiographic measurements between the two views. The measures included cervical lordosis using the absolute rotation angle from C2-C7, sagittal cervical translation of C2-C7, and atlas plane angle to horizontal. Linear correlation and R2 models were used for statistical comparison of the measures for the two views. (3) Results: The mean values of the three measurements were statistically different from each other: C2-C7 translation (FS = 19.84 ± 11.98 vs. LC = 21.18 ± 11.8), C2-C7 lordosis (FS = -15.3 ± 14.63 vs. LC = -18.32 ± 13.16), and atlas plane (FS = -19.99 ± 8.88 vs. LC = -22.56 ± 8.93), where all values were p < 0.001. Weak-to-moderate-to-strong correlations existed between the full-spine and sectional lateral cervical radiographic variables. The R2 values varied based on the measurement were R2 = 0.768 (p < 0.001) for sagittal cervical translation of C2-C7 (strong), R2 = 0.613 (p < 0.001) for the absolute rotation angle C2-C7 (moderate), and R2 = 0.406 (p < 0.001) for the atlas plane line (weak). Though a linear correlation was identified, there were consistent intra-person differences between the measurements on the full spine versus sectional lateral cervical radiographic views, where the full-spine view consistently underestimated the magnitude of the variables. (4) Conclusion: Key sagittal cervical radiographic measurements on the full spine versus sectional lateral cervical radiographic views show striking intra-person differences. The findings of this study confirm that full spine versus sectional lateral cervical radiographic views provide different biomechanical magnitudes of cervical sagittal alignment, and caution should be exercised by health care providers as these are not interchangeable. We recommend the LC view for measurement of cervical sagittal alignment variables.

Cervical spine lateral radiograph versus whole spine lateral radiograph: A retrospective comparative study to identify a better modality to assess cervical sagittal alignment

This study is aimed to compare whole-spine lateral radiograph (WLR) and cervical lateral radiograph (CLR) in terms of T1 slope visibility and cervical sagittal parameters and to identify the superior imaging modality for assessment of cervical sagittal parameters. We retrospectively reviewed the radiographic data of 60 consecutive adult patients (male-to-female ratio, 38:22; mean age, 55.6 ± 1.3 years) who presented with only neck pain (without radiculopathy or myelopathy). All the patients underwent standing CLR and WLR. The following parameters were measured and analyzed: 1. T1 slope visibility, 2. T1 slope, 3. C7 slope, 4. C0–C2 Cobb angle (CAC0–C2), 5. C2–C7 Cobb angle (CAC2–C7), and 6. cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA). The visibility of the T1 slope was significantly lower with WLR than with CLR (28.3% vs 83.3%, P  = .049). The mean CAC2–C7 on WLR was significantly less lordotic than that on CLR (11.2 ± 9.2° vs 14.3 ± 11.3°; P = .01). The mean cSVA was translated more posteriorly on WLR than on CLR (9.9 ± 18.9 mm vs 15.0 ± 13.4 mm, P = .04). However, no significant differences in T1 slope, C7 slope, and CAC0–C2 were found between CLR and WLR. This study shows that standing CLR could provide better visualization of the upper endplate of T1. Furthermore, WLR taken in hands on clavicle position distorted radiographic measurements such as CAC2-C7 and cSVA. Therefore, CLR performed in the standing position seems to allow more-accurate measurements of cervical sagittal parameters.

Cervical Sagittal Alignment: Literature Review and Future Directions

Cervical alignment as a concept has come to the forefront for spine deformity research in the last decade. Studies on cervical sagittal alignment started from normative data, and expanded into correlation with global sagittal balance, prognosis of various conditions, outcomes of surgery, definition and classification of cervical deformity, and prediction of targets for ideal cervical reconstruction. Despite the recent robust research efforts, the definition of normal cervical sagittal alignment and cervical spine deformity continues to elude us. Further, many studies continue to view cervical alignment as a continuation of thoracolumbar deformity and do not take into account biomechanical features unique to the cervical spine that may influence cervical alignment, such as the importance of musculature connecting cranium-cervical-thoracic spine and upper extremities. In this article, we aim to summarize the relevant literature on cervical sagittal alignment, discuss key results, and list potential future direction for research using the '5W1H' framework; "WHO" are related?, "WHY" important?, "WHAT" to evaluate and "WHAT" is normal?, "HOW" to evaluate?, "WHEN" to apply sagittal balance?, and "WHERE" to go in the future?

Evaluating Cervical Sagittal Alignment in Cervical Myelopathy: Are Sitting Cervical Radiographs and Standing Whole-Spine Radiographs Equally Useful?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of medical charts and radiographic data.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to clarify the differences in cervical alignment findings between sitting cervical lateral radiographs and standing whole-spine lateral radiographs with clavicle positioning in cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the radiographs of 50 consecutive patients who underwent cervical surgery for CSM in our hospital. Cervical sagittal alignment was evaluated based on the C0-2 angles and C2-7 Gore and Cobb angles. Head position was evaluated in terms of the center of gravity of the head to C7 (CGH-C7) angle and the McGregor angle (ie, the angle between the McGregor line and a horizontal line). The T1-slope was also evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean values of the CGH-C7 angle and T1-slope were significantly lower, while the mean value of the McGregor angle was significantly higher on whole-spine lateral radiographs with clavicle positioning than on sitting cervical lateral radiographs. The mean values of the C0-2 and C2-7 angles did not differ significantly between the 2 radiographic positioning approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Using whole-spine lateral radiographs with clavicle positioning may result in a significantly lower T1-slope and a posterior tilt of the head. In the absence of a compensatory change in cervical alignment, clavicle positioning may force patients to adopt an upward gazing position of the head. These compensatory mechanisms should be considered while evaluating cervical alignment on whole-spine lateral radiographs with clavicle positioning. Surgical planning should take into account the effect of posture on the radiographic appearance of cervical alignment.

Comparative Analysis of Three Imaging Modalities for Evaluation of Cervical Sagittal Alignment Parameters: A Validity and Reliability Study

STUDY DESIGN

This was a radiologic validity and reliability study.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the validity and reliability of measurements from standing lateral cervical radiography (XR), reconstructed midsagittal images of supine cervical computerized tomography (CT) scans, and supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for evaluating C2-C7 distance (C27 SVA), C2-C7 Cobb angle (CL), T1 slope (T1S), thoracic inlet angle (TIA), and neck tilt (NT).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

XR is the criterion standard imaging modality for measuring cervical sagittal alignment parameters. However, overlapping bony structures and soft tissue often make the upper end of the manubrium and cervicothoracic junction indiscernible. CT and MRI can overcome this limitation, but their reliability and validity have not been fully elucidated.

METHODS

Fifty sets of three examinations from our database have been randomly selected. Three experienced spinal surgeons independently measured C27 SVA, CL, T1S, TIA, and NT. Paired t test and Pearson correlation were used to analyze the validity of CT and MRI in comparison with that of XR. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability were assessed by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

The paired t test confirmed the similarities of all CT (except C27 SVA) and MR parameters (except C27 SVA and CL) to the XR parameters (all P > 0.05). All parameters except C27 SVA were correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.523-0.913). Correlation was highest between CT and MRI and lowest between CT and XR. All three imaging modalities had excellent intraobserver and interobserver reliability (ICC range: 0.770-0.999). Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were highest with MRI and lowest with XR.

CONCLUSION

CT and especially MRI were more reliable than XR for evaluating cervical sagittal alignment parameters. Considering the reliability and radiation exposure, MRI is a good alternative to XR for measuring cervical sagittal alignment parameters, especially thoracic inlet alignment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

An analysis of radiographic parameters comparison between lumbar spine latericumbent and full-length lateral standing radiographs

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The lumbar spine latericumbent and full-length lateral standing radiographs are most commonly used to assess lumbar disorder. However, there are few literatures on the difference and correlation of the sagittal parameters between the two shooting positions.

PURPOSE

The study aimed to investigate the difference of sagittal parameters in spine lateral radiographs between latericumbent and upright positions, identify the correlation, and establish a preliminary linear fitting formula.

STUDY DESIGN

The study is a prospective study on radiographic evaluation of sagittal alignment using latericumbent and upright positions.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred fifty-seven patients were recruited from the orthopedics clinic of a single medical center.

OUTCOME MEASURE

Angle measurement, the intra- and interobserver measurement reliability of measurement, and analysis of the angle measurement were carried out.

METHOD

The sagittal alignment of 157 patients were assessed using Surgimap software from two kinds of lateral radiographs to acquire the following parameters: lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), L4-L5 intervertebral angle (IVA4-5), L4-L5 intervertebral height index (IHI4-5), and PI-LL. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, paired t test, Pearson correlation analysis, and multivariate linear regression analysis were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The results showed significantly statistical difference in LL, SS, PT, IVA4-5, and PI-LL, except for PI and IHI4-5, between the two positions. There was a significant relativity between standing LL and latericumbent LL (r=0.733, p<.01), PI (r=0.611, p<.01), and SS (r=0.626, p<.01). The predictive formula of standing LL was 12.791+0.777 latericumbent LL+0.395 latericumbent PI-0.506 latericumbent SS (adjusted R²=0.619, p<.05).

CONCLUSION

Not all of sagittal parameters obtained from two positions are identical. Thus, the full-spine lateral standing films are difficult to be replaced. The surgeon should give sufficient consideration to the difference between the two views. We may primarily predict standing LL with the formula when we could not get whole-spine lateral standing radiographs.