Research Article

Relationship between lumbar subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness and spinopelvic parameters

Volume: 45 Number: 3 September 30, 2020
Sevil Okan *, Murat Beyhan
EN TR

Relationship between lumbar subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness and spinopelvic parameters

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was too reveal the relationship between lumbar subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness and spinopelvic parameters. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included a total of 92 individuals who had lumbosacral radiographs and lumbar magnetic resonance imaging among the people who applied to Tokat State Hospital in October-December 2019 period. Lumbar subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, lumbar lordosis and spinopelvic mismatch (Pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis) were determined, and correlations between these measurements were evaluated. Results: Subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness was 20.50±12.34 mm at L1 vertebra level and 29.79±15.68 mm at L5 vertebra level. Subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness at L1 vertebra level was strongly correlated with body mass index and adipose tissue thickness at L5 vertebra level, but weakly correlated with pelvic tilt and spinal misalignments. Conclusion: Subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness and body mass index increase was positively correlated. In addition, lumbar subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness and body mass index increase have effects on pelvis and spinal alignment. Lumbar subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness could be used to evaluate the effect of body composition on spinopelvic parameters.

Keywords

Lumbar subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness , Spinopelvic parameter , adipose tissue

References

  1. 1. Blair SN. Physical inactivity: the biggest public health problem of the 21st century. Br J Sports Med. 2009; 43(1): 1-2.
  2. 2. Aro S, Leino P. Overweight and musculoskeletal morbidity: A ten-year follow-up. Int. J. Obes. 1985; 9: 267–275.
  3. 3. Farfan HF, Huberdeau RM, Dubow HI. Lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration: the influence of geometrical features on the pattern of disc degeneration: a post mortem study. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1972; 54-A: 492–510.
  4. 4. Bernhardt M, Bridwell KH. Segmental analysis of the sagittal plane alignment of the normal thoracic and lumbar spines and thoracolumbar junction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989; 14: 717–721.
  5. 5. Leboeuf-Yde C, Kyvic KO, Bruun NH. Low back pain and lifestyle. Part II-obesity. Information from a population-based sample of 29,242 twin subjects. Spine. 1999; 15: 779–783.
  6. 6. Klare C, Johnson N, Chapman T, Darden B, Davidson D, Milam A. Comparison of Subcutaneous Fat Thickness in the Lumbar Spine Related to BMI Between Males and Females. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019; 30: 45.
  7. 7. Takatalo J, Karppinen J, Taimela S, et al. Association of abdominal obesity with lumbar disc degeneration--a magnetic resonance imaging study. PLoS One. 2013; 8(2): e56244.
  8. 8. Schwab F, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy J, Lafage V. Adult spinal deformity-postoperative standing imbalance: how much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35 : 2224 – 31.
  9. 9. Vaz G, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J. Sagittal morphology and equilibrium of pelvis and spine. Eur Spine J. 2002; 11(1): 80–7.
  10. 10. Diebo BG, Ferrero E, Lafage R, et al. Recruitment of compensatory mechanisms in sagittal spinal malalignment is age and regional deformity dependent: a full-standing axis analysis of key radiographical parameters. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40: 642–649.