4.5 Article

Differences in lumbar and pelvic parameters among African American, Caucasian and Asian populations

Journal

EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL
Volume 27, Issue 12, Pages 2990-2998

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-5743-5

Keywords

Pelvic parameters; Pelvic tilt; Pelvic incidence; Ethnic groups; African American

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Ethnic differences in spino-pelvic parameters among a healthy population are poorly defined in the literature. The purpose of this study was to document sagittal spino-pelvic parameters in a sample of African Americans and to compare them with previously reported data for Caucasians and Asians. Methods African American individuals without spine pathology who had standing lateral radiographs were identified. Radiographs were measured to determine the following parameters: lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT) and sacral slope (SS). Data of adult subjects were compared with those previously published for Caucasians (n = 709) and Asians (n = 312). Results These measurements (LL, PI, PT, and SS) obtained for the 36 African American subjects aged 18years or older [15 men and 21 women; mean age 26.68.7 range (18-53)] The mean LL, PI, PT and SS values were 57.2 degrees, 57.7 degrees, 15.9 degrees and 41.4 degrees, respectively. A comparative analysis showed the means values for PI was greater in the African American than in Caucasian (57.7 degrees vs. 52.6 degrees, p = 0.007), and than in Asian (57.7 degrees vs. 48.7 degrees, p < 0.001). The linear regression model for the LL as a function of PI were predict LL = 0.41xPI+33.7 in African American, predict LL = 0.58 x PI + 24.3 in Caucasian, and predict LL = 0.54 x PI + 22.0 in Asian, respectively. Conclusion Significant differences in sagittal spino-pelvic parameters among races were seen. These differences should be considered when planning surgical reconstruction for spinal surgery. [GRAPHICS] .

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available