BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Knowledge of sagittal radiographic parameters in @entity1615 ( @entity1615 ) @entity1 has not yet caught up with our understanding of their roles in @entity1 with adult @entity85 . It is likely that more emphasis will be placed in restoring sagittal parameters for @entity1615 @entity1 in the future. Therefore, we need to understand how these parameters may vary in @entity1615 to facilitate management plans. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the reproducibility of sagittal spinal parameters on lateral film radiographs in @entity1 with @entity1615 . STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This was a retrospective, comparative study conducted in a tertiary health-care institution from January 2013 to February 2016 (3-year period). @entity1 SAMPLE: All @entity1615 @entity1 who underwent deformity correction surgery from January 2013 to February 2016 and had two preoperative serial lateral radiographs taken within the time period of a month were included in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic sagittal spinal parameters including sagittal vertical axis (SVA), @entity1515 ( @entity1515 ), @entity1513 ( @entity1513 ), thoracolumbar alignment (TL), @entity1515 ( @entity1515 ); standard spinopelvic measurements such as pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), @entity10145 ( @entity10145 ); as well as end and apical vertebrae of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar curves were the outcome measures. METHODS: All @entity1 data were pooled from electronic medical records, and X- @entity16039 images were retrieved from Centricity Enterprise Web. Averaged X- @entity16039 measurements by two independent assessors were analyzed by comparing two radiographs of the same @entity1 performed within a 1-month time period. Chi-squared and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for categorical and continuous variables. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 138 @entity1 , 28 @entity1 and 110 @entity1 , with a mean age of 15 years (range 11-20). Between the two lateral X- @entity16039 , there was a mean difference of 0.79   cm in SVA (p<.001), 0.70   in @entity1515 (p=.033), and 0.73   in PT (p=.010). In the combined Lenke 1 and 2 subgroup, there was a similar 0.77   cm (p=.002), 0.79   (p=.009), and 1.49   (p=.001) mean difference in SVA, @entity1515 , and PT, respectively. Additionally, there was also a 1.85   (p=.009) and 1.76   (p=.006) mean difference seen in TL and @entity10145 , respectively. The overall profile of the sagittal curves remained largely similar, with only the lumbar apex shifting from L3 to L4 during the first and the second X- @entity16039 , respectively (p<.001). This occurred for the combined Lenke 1 and 2 subgroup as well (p<.001). CONCLUSION: Most radiographic sagittal spinal parameters in @entity1615 @entity1 are generally reproducible with some variations up to a maximum of 4  . This natural variation should be taken into account when interpreting these radiographic sagittal parameters so as to achieve the most accurate results in surgical planning.

Reproducibility of sagittal radiographic parameters in XXXX -a guide to reference values using serial imaging.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['women', 'patients', 'patient', 'PATIENT', 'men'] @entity1615 :: ('OMIM:181800', 'Disease') :: ['AIS', 'adolescent idiopathic scoliosis'] @entity16039 :: ('255564', 'Species') :: ['ray', 'rays'] @entity1513 :: ('MESH:D007738', 'Disease') :: ['TK', 'thoracic kyphosis'] @entity1515 :: ('MESH:D008141', 'Disease') :: ['cervical lordosis', 'CL', 'lumbar lordosis', 'LL'] @entity85 :: ('MESH:D009140', 'Disease') :: ['spinal deformity'] @entity10145 :: ('MESH:C537221', 'Disease') :: ['SS', 'sacral slope']
@entity1615 :: (OMIM:181800,Disease) :: ['adolescent idiopathic scoliosis']
