Cross-sectional study finds an average 11.9-degree loss of lumbar lordosis from standing to lateral position in adults, highlighting alignment risks during lateral interbody fusion.
Purpose The purpose of this cross-sectional, observational study was to establish the relationship between standing lumbar lordosis (LL) and lateral decubitus LL. Methods Forty-nine subjects, 24 male and 25 female, were prospectively enrolled. Patients with pre-existing spinopelvic pathology were excluded. Standing, relaxed-seated, and lateral decubitus lateral radiographs were obtained. Radiographic variables measured included LL and lordosis change at each lumbar level (e.g. L1-L2). The change in LL when going from a standing to a lateral decubitus position (ΔLL), the correlation between standing and sitting LL compared to lateral decubitus LL, and the correlation between ΔLL and standing pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch, pelvic femoral angle (PFA), and sacral slope (SS) were calculated. Results Subjects had an average age of 25.7 ± 2.3 years and body mass index of 24.1 ± 3.0 kg/m 2 . On average, 11.9°±8.2° (range − 7° to 29°) of LL was lost when transitioning from a standing to the lateral decubitus position. Lateral decubitus LL had a higher correlation with standing LL ( R = 0.725, p < 0.001) than with relaxed-seated LL ( R = 0.434, p < 0.001). Standing PT and PI-LL mismatch had moderately negative correlations with ΔLL ( R =-0.58 and R =-0.59, respectively, both p < 0.05). Standing PI and standing PFA had a low negative correlation with ΔLL ( R =-0.31 and R =-0.44, respectively, both p < 0.05) Standing SS and LL had no correlation with ΔLL. Conclusions Standing LL was strongly correlated to lateral decubitus LL, although subjects lost an average of 11.9° from the standing to the lateral decubitus position. This has important implications for fusion in the lateral position.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mills et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: