| Literature DB >> 31934595 |
Antoine Ferenczi1, Antoine Moraux2,3, Franck Le Gall4, André Thevenon1, Valérie Wieczorek1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pelvic-femoral injuries are a common problem in football (soccer) players. However, the risk factors for these injuries are unclear. Our knowledge of spinal-pelvic sagittal balance has increased considerably over the past few years, notably as a result of new radiographic techniques such the EOS radiographic imaging system.Entities:
Keywords: EOS imaging; acute injury; adductors; hamstrings; obturators; pelvic tilt; pelvic-femoral injury; quadriceps; spinal-pelvic sagittal balance
Year: 2020 PMID: 31934595 PMCID: PMC6947882 DOI: 10.1177/2325967119894962
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orthop J Sports Med ISSN: 2325-9671
Figure 1.Full spine contouring on paired frontal and lateral views on an EOS radiograph, with appropriate manually placed landmarks and automatically provided angles.
Figure 2.Schematics of spine parameters used in this study obtained through the EOS system with appropriate landmarks. To assess spine parameters, angles were measured through use of the Cobb method (angles formed by the tangent lines to the endplates of the extreme vertebrae limiting a given curvature). Thoracic kyphosis (“cyphose”) T1/T12 is the angle between the upper vertebral tray of T1 and lower tray of T12. Thoracic kyphosis T4-T12 is the angle between the upper vertebral tray of T4 and lower tray of T12. Lumbar lordosis (“lordose”) L1/L5 is the angle between the upper vertebral tray of L1 and lower tray of L5. Lumbar lordosis L1/S1 is the angle between the upper vertebral tray of L1 and sacral endplate.
Figure 3.Schematics of pelvic parameters used in this study obtained through the EOS system with appropriate landmarks. To assess the 3 sagittal pelvic parameters, it was necessary to draw different points and lines on sagittal views: the center of the femoral heads (C point); the midpoint of the sacral endplate (S point); the CS line; a vertical line passing through the C point; a line tangent to the sacral endplate; a line perpendicular to this tangent, passing through the S point; and a horizontal line cutting this tangent. Pelvic incidence (“incidence pelvienne”) is the angle that is between CS and perpendicular to the tangent at the sacral endplate; sacral slope (“pente sacrée”) is the angle between the tangent at the sacral endplate; and horizontal and pelvic tilt (“version pelvienne”) is the angle between vertical and the CS line.
Figure 4.Schematics of knee parameters used in this study obtained through the EOS system with appropriate landmarks. Femoral length (“longueur femur”) is the distance between the center of the femoral head and the center of the trochlea. Tibial length (“longueur tibia”) is the distance between the center of the tibial spine (intercondylar eminence) and the center of the ankle joint. Femur torsion (“torsion fémorale”) is the angle between the femoral neck axis and posterior condylar line. Difference in overall leg length between the right (“droite”) and left (“gauche”) sides was also calculated.
Figure 5.Flowchart of the study population.
Demographic Characteristics of the Study Population (N = 61)
| Characteristic | Value |
|---|---|
| Age, y | 24.5 ± 4.9 |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 23 ± 1.6 |
| Position | |
| Attack | 20 (33) |
| Defense | 19 (31) |
| Mid-field | 16 (26) |
| Goalkeeper | 6 (10) |
| Ethnic origin | |
| Caucasian | 24 (39) |
| African | 24 (39) |
| North African | 3 (5) |
| West Indian | 4 (6.5) |
| Réunion | 2 (3) |
| Central American | 1 (1.5) |
| South American | 4 (6.5) |
| Dominant side | |
| Right | 57 (93) |
| Left | 4 (7) |
| Playing time over the 5 seasons, h | 83.6 ± 73.5 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SD or n (%).
Sagittal Radiographic Parameters of the Players
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Kyphosis T4-T12, deg | 30.8 ± 7.9 |
| Lordosis L1-S1, deg | 57.5 ± 10.6 |
| Pelvic incidence, deg | 54.6 ± 10.8 |
| Pelvic tilt, deg | 9.08 ± 5.6 |
| Sacral slope, deg | 45.4 ± 8.8 |
| Pelvic obliquity, mm | 4.4 ± 4.1 |
| Axial rotation of the pelvis, deg | 0.6 ± 4.0 |
| Right femur torsion, deg | 17.4 ± 8.8 |
| Left femur torsion, deg | 17.8 ± 9.8 |
| Difference in leg length, cm | 0.6 ± 0.4 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SD.
Figure 6.Distribution of injuries. Left, total injuries; right, acute injuries.
Relationship Between Sagittal Radiographic Parameters and Global Incidence of Injuries
| Variable | Coefficient | SE |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| T4-T12 | 0.02 | 0.016 | .19 |
| L1-S1 | –0.03 | 0.025 | .20 |
| Pelvic incidence | 0.03 | 0.030 | .25 |
| Pelvic tilt | –0.09 | 0.040 | .02 |
| Pelvic obliquity | 0.01 | 0.033 | .82 |
| Axial rotation of pelvis | –0.04 | 0.028 | .17 |
| Difference in leg length | 0.11 | 0.307 | .71 |
Statistically significant.
Relationship Between Sagittal Radiographic Parameters and Incidence of Acute Musculotendinous Injuries
| Variable | Coefficient | SE |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| T4-T12 | 0.03 | 0.02 | .09 |
| L1-S1 | –0.04 | 0.03 | .18 |
| Pelvic incidence | 0.04 | 0.04 | .27 |
| Pelvic tilt | –0.10 | 0.05 | .05 |
| Pelvic obliquity | –0.04 | 0.04 | .35 |
| Axial rotation of pelvis | –0.04 | 0.04 | .26 |
| Difference in leg length | 0.45 | 0.40 | .27 |
Statistically significant.
Relationship Between Sagittal Radiographic Parameters and Incidence of Psoas Muscle Injuries
| Variable | Coefficient | SE |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| T4-T12 | 0.05 | 0.06 | .44 |
| L1-S1 | –0.08 | 0.09 | .32 |
| Pelvic incidence | 0.12 | 0.09 | .06 |
| Pelvic tilt | –0.26 | 0.14 | .06 |
| Pelvic obliquity | –0.01 | 0.11 | .90 |
| Axial rotation of pelvis | –0.09 | 0.10 | .39 |
| Difference in leg length | 0.23 | 1.21 | .85 |