Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2026
Transtubular Endoscopic Posterolateral Decompression for L5-S1 Lumbar Lateral Disc Herniation
Published on: October 14, 2022
Assessment of sacral doming in lumbosacral spondylolisthesis
Jean-Marc Mac-Thiong1, Hubert Labelle, Stefan Parent
1Division of Orthopedic Surgery, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Study Design:
Quantitative versus subjective evaluation of sacral doming in lumbosacral spondylolisthesis.
Objectives:
To evaluate the relevance of the Spinal Deformity Study Group (SDSG) index in the assessment of sacral doming and to propose a quantitative criterion to differentiate between significant and nonsignificant doming.
Summary Of Background Data:
There is no consensus on the optimal technique to assess sacral doming, although it is an important feature in spondylolisthesis.
Methods:
Five spinal surgeons subjectively assessed the sacral endplate of 100 subjects (34 high-grade spondylolisthesis, 50 low-grade spondylolisthesis, 16 controls) from lateral radiographs. Subjects were classified by each surgeon as having significant or nonsignificant sacral doming. An independent observer quantitatively evaluated sacral doming for all subjects using the SDSG index. A criterion to differentiate significant from nonsignificant sacral doming was sought, based on the comparison between the subjective assessment of surgeons and the quantitative evaluation by the independent observer. Intrarater and interrater reliability of the SDSG index was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results:
Intrarater and interrater ICCs for the SDSG index were excellent at 0.91 and 0.88, respectively. Sacral doming evaluated with the SDSG index was 11.6% +/- 5.0% (range, 1.5%-18.9%), 16.4% +/- 6.3% (range, 3.7%-35.6%), and 27.9% +/- 10.9% (range, 5.7%-56.9%) for controls, low-grade, and high-grade cases, respectively. Overall intersurgeon agreement on the significance of sacral doming was substantial at 88% (kappa = 0.72). With a threshold value of 25% for the SDSG index, 93% of concordance was found between the quantitative evaluation using the SDSG index and the multisurgeons subjective assessment.
Conclusion:
This study confirms the relevance of the SDSG index to assess sacral doming in lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. The authors propose a criterion of 25% to differentiate significant from nonsignificant sacral doming using the SDSG index. Such a criterion will allow more accurate assessment of sacral remodeling, especially for borderline cases, and facilitate comparisons between studies.