Conflicting calculations of pelvic incidence and pelvic tilt secondary to transitional lumbosacral anatomy (lumbarization of S-1): case report

Analysis of Spinopelvic Parameters and Lumbar Lordosis in Patients with Transitional Lumbosacral Vertebrae, with Special Reference to Sacralization and Lumbarization

BACKGROUND

Transitional lumbosacral vertebra presents in 2 forms based on its origin: sacralization and lumbarization. These patients have 2 options for sacral endplates (upper and lower) and consequently, 2 sets of values for spinopelvic parameters and lumbar lordosis (LL). This study aimed to evaluate these parameters in asymptomatic patients with sacralization and lumbarization and compare them with each other and normative values.

METHODS

Spinopelvic parameters and LL according to upper and lower endplate were measured using abdominal computed tomography in 1420 asymptomatic patients, of which 108 had Transitional lumbosacral vertebra. These parameters were compared among patients with lumbarization and sacralization and with normal controls. In addition, correlations between the upper and lower endplate parameters were determined.

RESULTS

As compared to the control group, upper endplate measurements yielded lower spinopelvic parameters and LL values while lower endplate values yielded higher values. While these values were significantly different from normative values, these parameters were similar in both lumbarization and sacralization groups. Furthermore, most spinopelvic parameters of both upper and lower endplates were strongly correlated, and the differences between the upper and lower PI and LL values are relatively constant (27° and 14°, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Upper and lower endplate parameters are comparable in patients with sacralization and lumbarization; therefore, the average spatial position of a sacralized L5 and a lumbarized S1 within the pelvis is similar and either parameter can be used for radiological measurements. Further studies with symptomatic patients are warranted to confirm these results.

Changes in Lumbosacral Anatomy and Vertebral Numbering in Patients with Thoracolumbar and/or Lumbosacral Transitional Vertebrae

The presence of a thoracolumbar transitional vertebra (TLTV) and/or lumbosacral transitional vertebra (LSTV) may cause wrong-site surgery and problems while measuring spinopelvic parameters, including pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis. The Castellvi classification of LSTV addresses coronal images but not sagittal or axial images. Therefore, it is unclear how LSTV differs from the normal lumbosacral anatomy. We aimed to investigate the lumbosacral anatomy and vertebral numbering in patients with TLTV and/or LSTV. We performed computed tomography (CT) to identify TLTV, to number presacral vertebrae accurately, and to analyze morphological differences in each LSTV type.

Interpretation of Spinal Radiographic Parameters in Patients With Transitional Lumbosacral Vertebrae

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective radiographic review.

OBJECTIVES

To understand the effect of variability in sacral endplate selection in transitional lumbosacral vertebrae (TLSV) and its impact on pelvic, regional, and global spinal alignment parameters.

BACKGROUND

TLSV can have the characteristics of both lumbar and sacral vertebrae. Difficulties in identification of the S1 endplate may come from nomenclature, number of lumbar vertebrae, sacra, and morphology and may influence the interpretation and consistency of spinal alignment parameters.

METHODS

Patients with TLSV were identified and radiographic measurements including pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), T1-pelvic angle (TPA), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch, thoracic kyphosis (TK), and spinal inclination (T1SPi) were obtained. Radiographic measurements were performed twice with the sacral endplate at the cephalad and caudal options. Paired t tests assessed the difference between different selection groups.

RESULTS

Of 1,869 patients, 70 (3.7%) were found to have TLSV on radiographic imaging. Fifty-eight (82.9%) had lumbarized sacral segments whereas 12 (17.1%) had sacralized lumbar segments. T1-SPi (mean: -1.77°) and TK (mean: 34.86°) did not vary from altering sacral endplate selection. Selection of the caudal TLSV as the sacral endplate resulted in an increase in all pelvic parameters (PI: 66.8° vs. 44.3°, PT: 25.1° vs. 12.7°, and SS: 41.6° vs. 31.6°), regional lumbar parameters (LL: -54.1° vs. 44.0°, PI-LL: 12.7° vs. 0.3°), and global parameters (SVA: 46.1 mm vs. 28.3 mm, TPA: 23.3° vs. 10.8°) as compared to selecting the cephalad TLSV. All mean differences between radiographic parameters were found to be statistically significant (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in sacral endplate selection in TLSV significantly affects spinal alignment parameter measurements. A standardized method for measuring TLSV is needed to reduce measurement error and ultimately allow more accurate understanding of alignment targets in patients with TLSV.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Variability in Assessing Spinopelvic Parameters With Lumbosacral Transitional Vertebrae: Inter- and Intraobserver Reliability Among Spine Surgeons

STUDY DESIGN

Prospectively collected survey study OBJECTIVE.: The aim of this study was to determine the consistency with which spinopelvic parameters (SPP) are determined in patients with lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The incidence of LSTV in the general population is as high as 35.6%. The often fixed nature of LSTV relative to the pelvis, but lumbar-type appearance, may lead to differential use of the S1 endplate when performing SPP assessment. This could have significant impact on SPP derived from these landmarks, resulting in considerable variation in surgical planning and decision-making.

METHODS

Twenty patients demonstrating LSTV on standing lateral 36-inch spinal radiographs were randomly arranged and independently analyzed by 16 experienced spine surgeons using the same computer software. Pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), lumbar lordosis (LL), and T1 pelvic angle (TPA) were captured. Two weeks after the first assessment, surgeons repeated the measurements after image sequence re-randomization. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to evaluate interobserver reliability (IOR) for each SPP. Intraobserver reliability (IAOR) was assessed through an average Pearson correlation coefficient for each parameter for each surgeon.

RESULTS

Sixteen surgeons completed initial measurements. IOR was poor for TPA (0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20, 0.58) and PI (0.42, 95% CI 0.26, 0.65) and fair for LL (0.67, 95% CI 0.51, 0.82), and PT (0.63, 95% CI 0.47, 0.81). Fourteen surgeons completed phase-2 measurements to assess IAOR. Average parameter PPC showed excellent IAOR (LL 0.86, TPA 0.77, PI 0.78, PT 0.86). Kappa coefficient showed fair agreement for raters choosing the same endplate for measurement (Phase 1: 0.38, Phase 2: 0.32). By patient, the percentage of raters that chose the S1 endplate for measurement varied from 6.3% to 85.7%.

CONCLUSION

Significant variability exists when surgeons measure SPP in patients with LSTV. These parameters are critical in determining the goals of surgical reconstruction and such variability may have considerable implications for radiographic goals and outcomes of surgical reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

A review of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae and associated vertebral numeration

PURPOSE

To review the current literature on methods of accurate numeration of vertebral segments in patients with Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTVs). LSTVs are a common congenital anomaly of the L5-S1 junction. While their clinical significance has been debated, unquestionable is the need for their identification prior to spinal surgery. We hypothesize that there are no reliable landmarks by which we can accurately number transitional vertebrae, and thus a full spinal radiograph is required.

METHODS

A Pubmed and EMBASE search using various combinations of specific key words including "LSTV", "lumbosacral transitional vertebrae", "count", "vertebral numbering", and "number" was performed.

RESULTS

The gold standard for spinal segment numeration in patients with LSTV remains whole spine imaging and counting caudally, starting from C2. If whole spine imaging is not available, the use of the iliac crest tangent sign on coronal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has fairly reliable sensitivity and specificity (81 and 64-88%, respectively) for accurate numeration of LSTV. The role of paraspinal anatomic markers such as the right renal artery, superior mesenteric artery, aortic bifurcation, and conus medullaris, for identification of vertebral levels is unreliable and should not be used.

CONCLUSIONS

A sagittal whole spine view should be added as a scout view when patients obtain lumbar MRI to standardize the vertebral numbering technique. To date, there has been no other method for accurate numeration of a transitional vertebral segment, other than counting caudally from C2. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Localizing the L5 Vertebra Using Nerve Morphology on MRI: An Accurate and Reliable Technique

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Multiple methods have been used to determine the lumbar vertebral level on MR imaging, particularly when full spine imaging is unavailable. Because postmortem studies show 95% accuracy of numbering the lumbar vertebral bodies by counting the lumbar nerve roots, attention to lumbar nerve morphology on axial MR imaging can provide numbering clues. We sought to determine whether the L5 vertebra could be accurately localized by using nerve morphology on MR imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred eight cases with full spine MR imaging were numbered from the C2 vertebral body to the sacrum with note of thoracolumbar and lumbosacral transitional states. The origin level of the L5 nerve and iliolumbar ligament were documented in all cases. The reference standard of numbering by full spine imaging was compared with the nerve morphology numbering method. Five blinded raters evaluated all lumbar MRIs with nerve morphology technique twice. Prevalence and bias-adjusted κ were used to measure interrater and intrarater reliability.

RESULTS

The L5 nerve arose from the 24th presacral vertebra (L5) in 106/108 cases. The percentage of perfect agreement with the reference standard was 98.1% (95% CI, 93.5%-99.8%), which was preserved in transitional and numeric variation states. The iliolumbar ligament localization method showed 83.3% (95% CI, 74.9%-89.8%) perfect agreement with the reference standard. Inter- and intrarater reliability when using the nerve morphology method was strong.

CONCLUSIONS

The exiting L5 nerve can allow accurate localization of the corresponding vertebrae, which is essential for preprocedure planning in cases where full spine imaging is not available. This neuroanatomic method displays higher agreement with the reference standard compared with previously described methods, with strong inter- and intrarater reliability.