Difference and Correlation Between Standing and Supine Cervical Sagittal Alignment: DTS vs MRI

Study designRetrospective study.ObjectivesThis study aimed to measure cervical sagittal alignment parameters on upright digital tomosynthesis (DTS) and supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and evaluate the difference and correlation of cervical curvature in different postures.Methods101 CSM patients underwent both standing DTS and supine MRI. Parameters including O-C2 angle, cervical lordosis (CL), C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (C2-7 SVA), neck tilt (NT), T1 slope (T1S), thoracic inlet angle (TIA), cervical tilt, and cranial tilt were measured. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) was used to assess inter-observer reliability. Paired <i>t</i>-tests and Pearson correlation analyses were applied to investigate the difference and correlation of parameters in standing and supine position.ResultsAll parameters measured on DTS and MRI showed excellent reliability (ICC >0.8). Significant differences were observed in O-C2 (DTS: -24.2 ± 11.2° vs MRI: -14.3 ± 6.6°, <i>P</i> < 0.001), CL (DTS: -15.2° ± 4.4° vs MRI: -8.1° ± 3.6°, <i>P</i> < 0.001), C2-7 SVA (DTS: 23.6 ± 11.0 mm vs MRI: 16.5 ± 8.5 mm, <i>P</i> < 0.001), T1S (DTS: 26.3° ± 8.4° vs MRI: 18.2° ± 6.6°, <i>P</i> < 0.001), Cervical tilt (DTS: 16.4° ± 5.6° vs MRI: 11.9° ± 6.5°, <i>P</i> < 0.001), and cranial tilt (DTS: 9.8° ± 9.3° vs MRI: 6.6° ± 8.3°, <i>P</i> = 0.015). Strong correlations existed for O-C2 (r = 0.834, <i>P</i> < 0.001), CL (r = 0.870, <i>P</i> < 0.001), and T1S (r = 0.875, <i>P</i> < 0.001).ConclusionsDTS reliably quantifies standing cervical alignment, particularly for cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) parameters obscured on radiography. Positional variations between standing and supine postures significantly impact cervical sagittal alignment. O-C2, CL and T1S obtained in supine position are considered meaningful parameters for evaluating cervical alignment in standing position.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Global Spine Journal
Published
2026-01-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682261419060
Primary Topic
Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Difference and Correlation Between Standing and Supine Cervical Sagittal Alignment: DTS vs MRI

P. Zhang, Shengbiao Ma, Mengxu Wang, Z. Zhou et al.
Global Spine Journal
Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
article

Difference and Correlation Between Standing and Supine Cervical Sagittal Alignment: DTS vs MRI

P. Zhang, Shengbiao Ma, Mengxu Wang, Z. Zhou, Xuechen Ding
article en

Abstract

Study designRetrospective study.ObjectivesThis study aimed to measure cervical sagittal alignment parameters on upright digital tomosynthesis (DTS) and supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and evaluate the difference and correlation of cervical curvature in different postures.Methods101 CSM patients underwent both standing DTS and supine MRI. Parameters including O-C2 angle, cervical lordosis (CL), C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (C2-7 SVA), neck tilt (NT), T1 slope (T1S), thoracic inlet angle (TIA), cervical tilt, and cranial tilt were measured. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) was used to assess inter-observer reliability. Paired <i>t</i>-tests and Pearson correlation analyses were applied to investigate the difference and correlation of parameters in standing and supine position.ResultsAll parameters measured on DTS and MRI showed excellent reliability (ICC >0.8). Significant differences were observed in O-C2 (DTS: -24.2 ± 11.2° vs MRI: -14.3 ± 6.6°, <i>P</i> < 0.001), CL (DTS: -15.2° ± 4.4° vs MRI: -8.1° ± 3.6°, <i>P</i> < 0.001), C2-7 SVA (DTS: 23.6 ± 11.0 mm vs MRI: 16.5 ± 8.5 mm, <i>P</i> < 0.001), T1S (DTS: 26.3° ± 8.4° vs MRI: 18.2° ± 6.6°, <i>P</i> < 0.001), Cervical tilt (DTS: 16.4° ± 5.6° vs MRI: 11.9° ± 6.5°, <i>P</i> < 0.001), and cranial tilt (DTS: 9.8° ± 9.3° vs MRI: 6.6° ± 8.3°, <i>P</i> = 0.015). Strong correlations existed for O-C2 (r = 0.834, <i>P</i> < 0.001), CL (r = 0.870, <i>P</i> < 0.001), and T1S (r = 0.875, <i>P</i> < 0.001).ConclusionsDTS reliably quantifies standing cervical alignment, particularly for cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) parameters obscured on radiography. Positional variations between standing and supine postures significantly impact cervical sagittal alignment. O-C2, CL and T1S obtained in supine position are considered meaningful parameters for evaluating cervical alignment in standing position.

Global Spine Journal
Nanchang University (CN), Zhengzhou University (CN), Changzhou Vocational Institute of Light Industry (CN), Zhengzhou Central Hospital (CN), Henan Cancer Hospital (CN), Henan Forestry Vocational College (CN), First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 80%
Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.