How Does the Slump Sitting Radiograph Increase Proportion of Segmental Instability and Kyphotic Alignment of Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis?

Qingshuang Zhou,Xu Sun,Bin Wang,Zezhang Zhu,Yong Qiu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/os.13962
2024-01-13
Orthopaedic Surgery
Abstract:Clinical and radiographic degenerative spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification was proposed to differentiate homogenous lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) subgroups (A). A patient diagnosed with L4/5 LDS received sitting (B), standing upright (C), standing flexion (D), standing extension (E), and supine CT images (F). According to the standing upright, flexion, extension, and the supine CT image, the patient was characterized with CARDS type B. However, the patient was distributed to CARDS type D in reference to the kyphotic alignment on sitting radiograph. Objective Clinical and radiographic degenerative spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification was proposed to differentiate homogenous lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) subgroups. The sitting radiograph exhibited lumbar malalignment with maximum lumbar kyphosis, intervertebral kyphosis, and spondylolisthesis.This study aimed to assess the sitting radiograph for distribution of clinical and radiographic degenerative spondylolisthesis classification, and to elucidate its significance for exhibiting kyphotic alignment (CARDS type D) and segmental instability. Methods A cohort of 101 patients with symptomatic lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) between September 2018 and December 2020 were recruited. The distribution and relibility of CARDS classification with or without sitting radiograph was assessed. The translational and angular range of motion and segmental instability was also evaluated. Univariate analysis of variance was used for multiple groups, and the least significant difference for two groups. Kappa consistency test of intrarater and interrater was evaluated for CARDS classification with or without sitting radiograph. Chi‐square test was used to compare paried categorical data. Results Utility of sitting radiographs for CARDS classification revealed higher percentage of type D than that without the sitting radiograph (p
orthopedics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?