BACKGROUND: Sagittal spinal alignment has mainly analyzed in the standing position. According to previous studies, there are significant differences in lumbopelvic alignment between the standing and sitting positions and cervical alignment is affected by lumbopelvic alignment. In this study, therefore, we hypothesized that cervical sagittal alignments are different between the standing and sitting positions. METHODS: A total of 108 patients with spinal degenerative diseases underwent whole spine radiography. Cervical lordosis (CL), C2-7 SVA, T1S, C7-S1 SVA, TK, LL, SS, PT, and PI were measured in the standing and sitting positions. Patients were classified into 3 groups according to the changes in CL (ΔCL, CL in the sitting position - CL in the standing position); ΔCL < -3° (Decreased group: DG; 28.7%), -3° ≤ ΔCL ≤ 3° (Unchanged group: UG; 41.7%), and ΔCL > 3° (Increased group: IG; 29.6%). RESULTS: The parameters of the UG in the standing position were closer to the ideal alignment (SRS-Schwab classification). In the DG, CL, T1S, and C7-S1 SVA in the standing position were significantly higher than in the UG. In the IG, PI-LL in the standing position was significantly higher than in the UG. In the sitting position, pelvis was rotated posteriorly (decrease in SS and increase in PT) and lumbar lordosis was flattened (decrease in LL) in all groups, and C2-7 SVA was significantly higher in the DG than in the UG. CONCLUSIONS: CL was different between the standing and sitting positions in 58.3% of individuals. However, patients with good spinal sagittal alignment appeared to not undergo any changes in cervical alignment. Our results suggest the possibility that patients who had a positive imbalance and large PI-LL mismatch in the standing position had decreased CL and increased CL, respectively, when in the sitting position.
BACKGROUND: Sagittal spinal alignment has mainly analyzed in the standing position. According to previous studies, there are significant differences in lumbopelvic alignment between the standing and sitting positions and cervical alignment is affected by lumbopelvic alignment. In this study, therefore, we hypothesized that cervical sagittal alignments are different between the standing and sitting positions. METHODS: A total of 108 patients with spinal degenerative diseases underwent whole spine radiography. Cervical lordosis (CL), C2-7 SVA, T1S, C7-S1 SVA, TK, LL, SS, PT, and PI were measured in the standing and sitting positions. Patients were classified into 3 groups according to the changes in CL (ΔCL, CL in the sitting position - CL in the standing position); ΔCL < -3° (Decreased group: DG; 28.7%), -3° ≤ ΔCL ≤ 3° (Unchanged group: UG; 41.7%), and ΔCL > 3° (Increased group: IG; 29.6%). RESULTS: The parameters of the UG in the standing position were closer to the ideal alignment (SRS-Schwab classification). In the DG, CL, T1S, and C7-S1 SVA in the standing position were significantly higher than in the UG. In the IG, PI-LL in the standing position was significantly higher than in the UG. In the sitting position, pelvis was rotated posteriorly (decrease in SS and increase in PT) and lumbar lordosis was flattened (decrease in LL) in all groups, and C2-7 SVA was significantly higher in the DG than in the UG. CONCLUSIONS: CL was different between the standing and sitting positions in 58.3% of individuals. However, patients with good spinal sagittal alignment appeared to not undergo any changes in cervical alignment. Our results suggest the possibility that patients who had a positive imbalance and large PI-LL mismatch in the standing position had decreased CL and increased CL, respectively, when in the sitting position.