ArticleJOR spine2021
Sacral anatomical parameters varies in different Roussouly sagittal shapes as well as their relations to lumbopelvic parameters.
Article in JOR spine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Significance of Odontoid Incidence in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Effect of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae on sagittal balance of lumbo-pelvic complexity assessed by quantitative whole-body CT imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- The change of Roussouly classification after posterior lumbar fusion surgery.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Revealing the Effect of Spinopelvic Alignment on Hip Disorders.Clinical medicine insights. Arthritis and musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Sacral anatomical parameters varies in different Roussouly sagittal shapes as well as their relations to lumbopelvic parameters.JOR spine · 2021Article
- Advances in basic and preclinical spine research: Highlights from the Chinese Spine Research Community.JOR spine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo study the normal variations in sacral anatomical parameters in different Roussouly sagittal shapes and the association between sacral anatomical parameters and lumbopelvic parameters in healthy adults.
methodsA cohort of 239 healthy volunteers between 18 and 45 years old was enrolled in this study. A full-spine, standing X-ray was taken for each volunteer. The following parameters were measured: the sacral table angle (STA), sacral kyphosis (SK), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), and lumbar lordosis apex (LLA). Two hundred and thirty-nine volunteers were classified into five groups according to the Roussouly classification. The differences in sagittal parameters among the five groups were evaluated by one-way analysis of variance. The correlations between lumbopelvic parameters and sacral anatomical parameters were analyzed, and simple linear regressions were simultaneously constructed.
resultThe sacral anatomical parameters vary in different Roussouly sagittal shapes. Correlation analysis revealed that the significant correlations between sacral anatomical parameters and lumbopelvic parameters. The STA correlated with PI (
conclusionsThe sacral anatomical parameters vary in different Roussouly sagittal shapes and have strong correlations with lumbopelvic parameters, which demonstrates that the specific lumbar shape can be affected by the sacral morphology. Moreover, the predictive models of lumbopelvic parameters based on SK and STA have been provided, which demonstrates constant sacral anatomical parameters could serve as good supplementary index of PI to predict ideal lumbar parameters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.