Sagittal balance of the cervical spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 33772659
- DOI: 10.1007/s00586-021-06825-0
Sagittal balance of the cervical spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the cervical sagittal parameters between patients with cervical spine disorder and asymptomatic controls.
Methods: Two independent authors systematically searched online databases including Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane library, and Web of Science up to June 2020. Cervical sagittal balance parameters, such as T1 slope, cervical SVA (cSVA), and spine cranial angle (SCA), were compared between the cervical spine in healthy, symptomatic, and pre-operative participants. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis, by CMA software. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using the I-squared statistic and funnel plots, respectively.
Results: A total of 102 studies, comprising 13,802 cases (52.7% female), were included in this meta-analysis. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to evaluate the quality of studies included in this review. Funnel plot and Begg's test did not indicate obvious publication bias. The pooled analysis reveals that the mean (SD) values were: T1 slope (degree), 24.5 (0.98), 25.7 (0.99), 25.4 (0.34); cSVA (mm), 18.7 (1.76), 22.7 (0.66), 22.4 (0.68) for healthy population, symptomatic, and pre-operative assessment, respectively. The mean value of the SCA (degree) was 79.5 (3.55) and 75.6 (10.3) for healthy and symptomatic groups, respectively. Statistical differences were observed between the groups (all P values < 0.001).
Conclusion: The findings showed that the T1 slope and the cSVA were significantly lower among patients with cervical spine disorder compared to controls and higher for the SCA. Further well-conducted studies are needed to complement our findings.
Keywords: Cervical SVA; Cervical spine; Sagittal balance; Spine cranial angle; T1 slope.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Scheer JK, Tang JA, Smith JS, Acosta FL Jr, Protopsaltis TS, Blondel B, Bess S, Shaffrey CI, Deviren V, Lafage V, Schwab F, Ames CP (2013) International Spine Study Group. Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications. J Neurosurg Spine 19:141–159. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.4.SPINE12838 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Patwardhan AG, Khayatzadeh S, Havey RM, Voronov LI, Smith ZA, Kalmanson O, Ghanayem AJ, Sears W (2018) Cervical sagittal balance: a biomechanical perspective can help clinical practice. Eur Spine J 27(Suppl 1):25–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5367-1 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Iyer S, Nemani VM, Nguyen J, Elysee J, Burapachaisri A, Ames CP et al (2016) Impact of cervical sagittal alignment parameters on neck disability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:371–377. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001221
-
- Nicholson KJ, Millhouse PW, Pflug E, Woods B et al (2018) Cervical Sagittal Range of Motion as a Predictor of Symptom Severity in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:883–889. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002478
-
- Tang JA, Scheer JK, Smith JS et al (2012) The impact of standing regional cervical sagittal alignment on outcomes in posterior cervical fusion surgery. Neurosurgery 71:662–669. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31826100c9 - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
