Abstract:The measurement of lumbar lordosis is reproducible and reliable if the technique is specified and one accepts 10 degrees as acceptable variation. Factors that affect the reproducibility of measurement include end vertebra selection (especially with transitional segments) and vertebral endplate architecture.
“…Although there are some disputes about physiological range, this angle should measure at about 30°and determines the degree of the superincumbent lordosis of lumbar spine. In this study, both lordotic angle and sacral angle were slightly smaller compared findings from former studies [3,8,10,11]. Lumbosacral joint is an important determinant to lumbar lordosis and is unstable because it is an inflexion point in spinal curvature [10].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 47%
“…The measurement of lordosis was well reported by Polly et al [11]. Originally, the method of Cobb used in this study was proposed as a measure of coronal plane deformity not as a measure of sagittal contour.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…The importance of sagittal contour and maintenance of appropriate lumbar lordosis has received increasing attention over the last few years [4,6,11,13,15,17]. Although the effects of hyperlordosis or hypolordosis All values are mean ± SD are not yet well established, loss of lumbar lordosis can have significant adverse consequences [11,15].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the effects of hyperlordosis or hypolordosis All values are mean ± SD are not yet well established, loss of lumbar lordosis can have significant adverse consequences [11,15]. Investigators have claimed that anthropometric characteristics such as increased lumbar lordosis and diminished abdominal muscle force by them can increase the risk of chronic LBP [11].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To measure lordotic angle, a permutation of the method of Cobb was applied. Lordotic angle was obtained between inferior endplate of L5 and superior endplate of L1 in the lateral view following Polly's method [11] (Fig. 3).…”
Section: Measurement Of Lordosis and Sacral Anglementioning
“…Although there are some disputes about physiological range, this angle should measure at about 30°and determines the degree of the superincumbent lordosis of lumbar spine. In this study, both lordotic angle and sacral angle were slightly smaller compared findings from former studies [3,8,10,11]. Lumbosacral joint is an important determinant to lumbar lordosis and is unstable because it is an inflexion point in spinal curvature [10].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 47%
“…The measurement of lordosis was well reported by Polly et al [11]. Originally, the method of Cobb used in this study was proposed as a measure of coronal plane deformity not as a measure of sagittal contour.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…The importance of sagittal contour and maintenance of appropriate lumbar lordosis has received increasing attention over the last few years [4,6,11,13,15,17]. Although the effects of hyperlordosis or hypolordosis All values are mean ± SD are not yet well established, loss of lumbar lordosis can have significant adverse consequences [11,15].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the effects of hyperlordosis or hypolordosis All values are mean ± SD are not yet well established, loss of lumbar lordosis can have significant adverse consequences [11,15]. Investigators have claimed that anthropometric characteristics such as increased lumbar lordosis and diminished abdominal muscle force by them can increase the risk of chronic LBP [11].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To measure lordotic angle, a permutation of the method of Cobb was applied. Lordotic angle was obtained between inferior endplate of L5 and superior endplate of L1 in the lateral view following Polly's method [11] (Fig. 3).…”
Section: Measurement Of Lordosis and Sacral Anglementioning
The cervical spine manifests a wide shape variation. However, the traditional methods to evaluate the cervical spine curve were never tested against its actual shape. The study's main aim was to determine whether the shape classification of the cervical spine, based on traditional angular measurements, coincides with each other and with the shape captured by the 2D landmark‐based geometric morphometric method. The study's second aim was to reveal the associations between the cervical spine shape and the demographic parameters, the head's position, and the spine's sagittal balance. CT scans of the cervical spine of 163 individuals were evaluated to achieve these goals. The shape was assessed by measuring the C2–C7 Cobb angle (CA), the C2–C7 posterior tangent angle (PTA), the curvedness of the arch, and by a 2D landmark‐based geometric morphometric method. The position of the head and the sagittal balance of the spine were evaluated by measuring the foramen magnum‐C2 Cobb angle (FMCA) and the T1 slope angle (T1SA), respectively. Based on the size of the angle measured, each individual was classified into one of the three cervical ‘shape groups’ (lordotic, straight, and kyphotic). We found that cervical lordosis was the dominant shape regardless of the measuring methods utilized (46.6%–54.6%), followed by straight neck (28.2%–30.1%), and kyphosis (15.3%–25.2%); however, about a third of the 163 individuals were classified into a different shape group using the CA and PTA methods. The cervical spine angle was sex‐independent and age‐dependent. The T1SA was significantly correlated with CA and PTA (r = 0.640 and r = 0.585, respectively; p < 0.001). In conclusion, the cervical spine shape evaluation is method‐dependent and varies with age.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.