| Literature DB >> 33957743 |
Pratyush Shahi1, Manish Chadha1, Apoorv Sehgal1, Aarushi Sudan1, Umesh Meena1, Kuldeep Bansal1, Dheeraj Batheja1.
Abstract
STUDYEntities:
Keywords: Post-tubercular kyphosis; Pulmonary function; Sagittal balance; Spinopelvic parameters; Thoracic spine
Year: 2021 PMID: 33957743 PMCID: PMC9260405 DOI: 10.31616/asj.2020.0464
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian Spine J ISSN: 1976-1902
Fig. 1Measurement of kyphotic angle (K angle).
Fig. 2Sagittal balance.
Fig. 3Spinopelvic parameters.
Kyphotic angle and FVC
| Kyphotic angle | No. of patients (%) | Mean % FVC |
|---|---|---|
| 60°–80° | 11 (55) | 73.3 |
| 81°–100° | 3 (15) | 59.8 |
| 101°–120° | 3 (15) | 56 |
| 121°–140° | 3 (15) | 36.3 |
FVC measured as percentage of predicted value.
FVC, forced vital capacity.
Apex of deformity
| Level | No. of subjects | Patients with compensated alignment (%) | Mean K angle (°) | Mean LL (°) | Mean PT/PI | Mean SS (°) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower (T9 and below) | 15 | 9 (60) | 82.2 | 75.6 | 0.40 | 25.9 |
| Middle (T4–T8) | 4 | 1 (25) | 108.5 | 86.8 | 0.19 | 46.5 |
| Upper (T3 and above) | 1 | 1 (100) | 63.0 | 50.0 | 0.30 | 30.0 |
K angle, kyphotic angle; LL, lumbar lordosis; PT, pelvic tilt; PI, pelvic incidence; SS, sacral slope.
Sagittal alignment—compensated and uncompensated
| Sagittal alignment | No. of patients | Mean K angle (°) | Mean LL (°) | Mean PI (°) | Mean PT/PI | Mean % FVC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compensated | 11 | 77.1 | 71.9 | 44.6 | 0.30 | 73.4 |
| Uncompensated | 9 | 99.4 | 82.2 | 40.3 | 0.40 | 51.1 |
FVC measured as percentage of predicted.
K angle, kyphotic angle; LL, lumbar lordosis; PI, pelvic incidence; PT, pelvic tilt; FVC, forced vital capacity.
Relation of PI with PT/PI ratio, PT, and LL
| PI (°) | No. of patients (%) | Mean PT/PI | Mean PT | Mean LL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20–35 | 4 (20) | 0.58 | 14.2 | 65.0 |
| 36–50 | 12 (60) | 0.29 | 12.5 | 80.2 |
| 51–70 | 4 (20) | 0.30 | 17.5 | 80.5 |
PI, pelvic incidence; PT, pelvic tilt; LL, lumbar lordosis.
Fig. 4(A, B) A 25-year-old female with mid-dorsal kyphotic deformity of 84°. Apex of deformity was in the mid-dorsal region and lumbar lordosis of 96° was the only compensatory mechanism. With a pelvic tilt (PT)/pelvic incidence (PI) ratio of 0.23 and sacral slope (SS) of 50°, there was no pelvic retroversion compensating for the deformity. Despite the exaggerated lumbar lordosis (LL), the sagittal balance (SB) is positive. TK, thoracic kyphosis.
Fig. 5(A, B) A 15-year-old female with lower thoracic kyphosis (TK) of 62°. Here, only lumbar lordosis (LL, 80°) was enough to maintain the spinal alignment and pelvic retroversion (pelvic tilt [PT]/pelvic incidence [PI] ratio of 0.35 and sacral slope [SS] of 33°) was not required.
Fig. 6(A, B) A 20-year-old female with mid-dorsal kyphosis of 140°. Here, longer lordotic curve allowed exaggerated lumbar lordosis (LL) of 100°. This led to an almost horizontal sacrum with inability to retrovert the pelvis (pelvic tilt [PT]/pelvic incidence [PI] is 0.33 and sacral slope [SS] is 60°). PT was negative (−15°) as femoral heads were behind the sacrum. So, here, due to hyperlordosis with anteverted pelvis and severe degree of deformity, the C7 plumb line had actually fallen behind the body, causing a negative sagittal balance (SB).