A review of methods for evaluating the quantitative parameters of sagittal pelvic alignment.

Background Context: The sagittal alignment of the pelvis represents the basic mechanism for maintaining postural equilibrium, and a number of methods were developed to assess normal and pathologic pelvic alignments from two-dimensional sagittal radiographs in terms of positional and anatomic parameters.

Purpose: To provide a complete overview of the existing methods for quantitative evaluation of sagittal pelvic alignment and summarize the relevant publications.

Study Design: Review article.

Methods: An Internet search for terms related to sagittal pelvic alignment was performed to obtain relevant publications, which were further supplemented by selected publications found in their lists of references. By summarizing the obtained publications, the positional and anatomic parameters of sagittal pelvic alignment were described, and their values and relationships to other parameters and features were reported.

Results: Positional pelvic parameters relate to the position and orientation of the observed subject and are represented by the sacral slope, pelvic tilt, pelvic overhang, sacral inclination, sacrofemoral angle, sacrofemoral distance, pelvic femoral angle, pelvic angle, and sacropelvic translation. Anatomic pelvic parameters relate to the anatomy of the observed subject and are represented by the pelvisacral angle (PSA), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic thickness (PTH), sacropelvic angle (PRS1), pelvic radius (PR), femorosacral posterior angle (FSPA), sacral table angle (STA), and sacral anatomic orientation (SAO). The review was mainly focused on the evaluation of anatomic pelvic parameters, as they can be compared among subjects and therefore among different studies. However, ambiguous results were yielded for normal and pathologic subjects, as the reported values show a relatively high variability in terms of standard deviation for every anatomic parameter, which amounts to around 10 mm for PTH and PR; 10° for PSA, PI, and SAO; 9° for PRS1 and FSPA; and 5° for STA in the case of normal subjects and is usually even higher in the case of pathologic subjects. Among anatomic pelvic parameters, PI was the most studied and therefore represents a key parameter in the complex framework of sagittal spinal alignment and related deformities. From the reviewed studies, the regression lines for PI and the corresponding age of the subjects indicate that PI tends to increase with age for normal (PI = +0.17 × age+46.40) and scoliotic (PI = +0.20 × age+50.52) subjects and decrease with age for subjects with spondylolisis or spondylolisthesis (PI = -0.26 × age+75.69).

Conclusions: Normative values for anatomic parameters of sagittal pelvic alignment do not exist because the variability of the measured values is relatively high even for normal subjects but can be predictive for spinal alignment and specific spinopelvic pathologies.