Sagittal spinal misalignment (SSM) is an established cause of pain and disability. Treating physicians must be familiar with the radiographic findings consistent with SSM. Additionally, the restoration or maintenance of physiological sagittal spinal alignment after reconstructive spinal procedures is imperative to achieve good clinical outcomes. The C-7 plumb line (sagittal vertical axis) has traditionally been used to evaluate sagittal spinal alignment; however, recent data indicate that the measurement of spinopelvic parameters provides a more comprehensive assessment of sagittal spinal alignment. In this review the authors describe the proper analysis of spinopelvic alignment for surgical planning. Online videos supplement the text to better illustrate the key concepts.

BACKGROUND:. Positive spinal regional and global sagittal malalignment has been repeatedly shown to correlate with pain and disability in thoracolumbar

Object: Sagittal spinopelvic malalignment is a significant cause of pain and disability in patients with adult spinal deformity. Surgical correction of spinopelvic malalignment can result in compensatory changes in spinal alignment outside of the fused spinal segments. These compensatory changes, termed reciprocal changes, have been defined for thoracic and lumbar regions but not for the cervical spine. The object of this study was to evaluate postoperative reciprocal changes within the cervical spine following lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO). Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective radiographic analysis of patients from International Spine Study Group centers. Inclusion criteria were as follows: adults (>18 years old) with spinal deformity treated using lumbar PSO, a preoperative C7–S1 plumb line greater than 5 cm, and availability of pre- and postoperative full-length standing radiographs. Results: Seventy-five patients (60 women, mean age 59 years) were included. The lumbar PSO significantly improved sagittal alignment, including the C7–S1 plumb line, C7–T12 inclination, and pelvic tilt (p <0.001). After lumbar PSO, reciprocal changes were seen to occur in C2–7 cervical lordosis (from 30.8° to 21.6°, p <0.001), C2–7 plumb line (from 27.0 mm to 22.9 mm), and T-1 slope (from −38.9° to −30.4°, p <0.001). Ideal correction of sagittal malalignment (postoperative sagittal vertical alignment < 50 mm) was associated with the greatest relaxation of cervical hyperlordosis (−12.4° vs −5.7°, p = 0.037). A change in cervical lordosis correlated with changes in T-1 slope (r = −0.621, p <0.001), C7–T12 inclination (r = 0.418, p <0.001), T12–S1 angle (r = −0.339, p = 0.005), and C7–S1 plumb line (r = 0.289, p = 0.018). Radiographic parameters that correlated with changes in cervical lordosis on multivariate linear regression analysis included change in T-1 slope and change in C2–7 plumb line (r² = 0.53, p <0.001). Conclusions: Adults with positive sagittal spinopelvic malalignment compensate with abnormally increased cervical lordosis in an effort to maintain horizontal gaze. Surgical correction of sagittal malalignment results in improvement of the abnormal cervical hyperlordosis through reciprocal changes.

Object: Stabilization of the atlantoaxial complex has proven to be very challenging. Because of the high mobility of the C1–2 motion segment, fusion rates at this level have been substantially lower than those at the subaxial spine. The set of potential surgical interventions is limited by the anatomy of this region. In 2001 Jürgen Harms described a novel technique for individual fixation of the C-1 lateral mass and the C-2 pedicle by using polyaxial screws and rods. This method has been shown to confer excellent stability in biomechanical studies. Cadaveric and radiographic analyses have indicated that it is safe with respect to osseous and vascular anatomy. Clinical outcome studies and fusion rates have been limited to small case series thus far. The authors reviewed the multicenter experience with 102 patients undergoing C1–2 fusion via the polyaxial screw/rod technique. They also describe a modification to the Harms technique.Methods: One hundred two patients (60 female and 42 male) with an average age of 62 years were included in this analysis. The average follow-up was 16.4 months. Indications for surgery were instability at the C1–2 level, and a chronic Type II odontoid fracture was the most frequent underlying cause. All patients had evidence of instability on flexion and extension studies. All underwent posterior C-1 lateral mass to C-2 pedicle or pars screw fixation, according to the method of Harms. Thirty-nine patients also underwent distraction and placement of an allograft spacer into the C1–2 joint, the authors' modification of the Harms technique. None of the patients had supplemental sublaminar wiring.Results: All but 2 patients with at least a 12-month follow-up had radiographic evidence of fusion or lack of motion on flexion and extension films. All patients with an allograft spacer demonstrated bridging bone across the joint space on plain x-ray films and computed tomography. The C-2 root was sacrificed bilaterally in all patients. A postoperative wound infection developed in 4 patients and was treated conservatively with antibiotics and local wound care. One patient required surgical debridement of the wound. No patient suffered a neurological injury. Unfavorable anatomy precluded the use of C-2 pedicle screws in 23 patients, and thus, they underwent placement of pars screws instead.Conclusions: Fusion of C1–2 according to the Harms technique is a safe and effective treatment modality. It is suitable for a wide variety of fracture patterns, congenital abnormalities, or other causes of atlantoaxial instability. Modification of the Harms technique with distraction and placement of an allograft spacer in the joint space may restore C1–2 height and enhance radiographic detection of fusion by demonstrating a graft–bone interface on plain x-ray films, which is easier to visualize than the C1–2 joint.