Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 19, 2025
Evaluation of Patients' Posture and Gait Profile After Lumbar Fusion Surgery by Video Rasterstereography and Treadmill Gait Analysis
Published on: March 23, 2019
Application of the Ames-International Spine Study Group radiographic modifiers to an asymptomatic population: are the
Rémi Pelletier-Roy1, Richard Cowley1, Taryn Ludwig1
11Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Calgary; and.
Objective:
The Ames-International Spine Study Group (ISSG) classification is a tool for stratifying severity in adult cervical spine deformity. The Ames-ISSG sagittal modifiers include C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), T1 slope-cervical lordosis mismatch (TS-CL), and chin-brow vertical angle (CBVA). Each modifier stratifies patients as grade 0, 1, or 2. The study aimed to classify an asymptomatic population according to the Ames-ISSG sagittal modifier grades and assess differences in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) between grades.
Methods:
A cross-sectional analysis of a prospectively collected database was performed. Five hundred healthy, asymptomatic volunteers between 20 and 40 years of age without prior surgery or diagnosed spinal pathology were enrolled and underwent EOS imaging to measure their Ames-ISSG sagittal modifiers (cSVA, TS-CL, and CBVA). HRQOL questionnaires (the Oswestry Disability Index and Neck Disability Index) were also completed.
Results:
Four hundred seventy-seven patients were included. The cSVA was not analyzed because 475 of 477 individuals were grade 0 (< 4 cm). The TS-CL modifier was not analyzed because 472 of 477 individuals were grade 0 (< 15°). The CBVA was grade 0 (1°-10°) in 64% of individuals and grade 1 (-10° to 0° or 11°-25°) in 36%. There was no significant difference between grades in HRQOL.
Conclusions:
The Ames-ISSG classification sagittal modifiers cSVA and TS-CL grade 0 describe normal anatomy. A CBVA grade of 1 is present in 36% of asymptomatic individuals with no difference in HRQOL scores. This study validates the threshold for grade 0 in a normative population for TS-CL and cSVA. It also highlights inconsistency in CBVA and the importance of specific instructions for appropriate evaluation.
