Sagittal Imbalance

Viewed from the side, a healthy spine is not straight. It forms a series of gentle, reciprocal curves — a forward curve in the neck, a backward curve in the chest, and a forward curve in the lower back — all sitting on a pelvis tilted to a particular angle. The purpose of this arrangement, often called the chain of balance, is to carry the head directly over the pelvis and the hips with as little muscular effort as possible. The term sagittal refers to this side-on, front-to-back plane, as distinct from the side-to-side plane in which scoliosis is measured.

Sagittal imbalance describes the state in which this side-on alignment is lost and the upper body comes to sit in front of the pelvis rather than over it. The key idea, and the one that sets this condition apart, is that sagittal imbalance is a global, whole-spine measurement rather than a single regional curve. A surgeon assessing it does not look at one part of the spine in isolation; the whole column, from the head down to the pelvis, is measured against gravity to see whether the head finishes up balanced over the hips or pitched forward of them.

This is why sagittal imbalance is described as the broad concept of which other conditions are particular causes. A loss of the forward curve in the lower back — flat back syndrome — is one specific way of producing sagittal imbalance. A kyphotic collapse at the top of a previous spinal fusion — proximal junctional kyphosis — is another. A wedged osteoporotic fracture, or a stiff degenerative spine that has lost its lordosis with age, can do the same. In each case the underlying mechanisms differ, but the final common picture, the forward-tilted trunk, is the state of sagittal imbalance.

Because sagittal imbalance is a question of whole-spine geometry, it is described using a set of measurements taken from a side-on, full-length standing X-ray. Pelvic incidence is the most fundamental: a fixed, individual measurement of the shape of the pelvis that does not change with posture once growth is complete. It sets how much forward curve, or lordosis, the lower back needs in order to be balanced. Lumbar lordosis is the depth of the forward curve actually present in the lower back; the crucial comparison between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis is the so-called PI–LL mismatch, with a difference greater than about ten degrees a recognised marker of abnormal alignment. The sagittal vertical axis is the horizontal distance by which a plumb line dropped from the base of the neck falls in front of the back of the sacrum; a value beyond about fifty millimetres is regarded as positive sagittal malalignment, and it is this measurement that correlates most consistently with pain and disability. Pelvic tilt measures how far the pelvis has rotated backwards to compensate, and T1 pelvic angle captures both the forward lean of the trunk and the backward rotation of the pelvis in a single number that compensation cannot disguise.

One of the most important features of sagittal imbalance is that the body fights hard to conceal it. When a regional curve is lost — most often the forward curve of the lower back — the spine recruits a stereotyped, ordered sequence of compensatory manoeuvres, all aimed at keeping the eyes level and the head over the pelvis for as long as possible. The first and most powerful is backward rotation of the pelvis (pelvic retroversion), which swings the base of the spine back underneath the trunk and shows up as a rise in pelvic tilt. When that reserve begins to run out, the chest curve flattens to bring the upper trunk back and the neck extends to keep the gaze horizontal. Finally, when the spine and pelvis have done all they can, the knees bend and the ankles flex, dropping and shifting the whole body backwards.

This cascade explains the central distinction between a compensated and a decompensated spine. A spine may be regionally abnormal yet still hold the head over the hips by means of a retroverted pelvis and slightly bent knees. Only when these reserves are exhausted does the trunk visibly pitch forward, the sagittal vertical axis climb, and the deformity become decompensated. Compensation fatigues because none of it is free: holding the pelvis retroverted and the knees bent against gravity is continuous, active muscular work, in place of the near-effortless ligamentous balance of a normal spine. Discomfort and exhaustion build through the day and on walking, and ease on sitting or lying down.

Coronal scoliosis is a side-to-side curvature with rotation, measured in the frontal plane. Sagittal imbalance, by contrast, is a front-to-back alignment problem in the side-on plane. The two frequently coexist, but the published evidence is consistent that it is the sagittal component that correlates best with disability. Isolated kyphosis — a Scheuermann curve in the chest, a post-traumatic angulation, or an osteoporotic wedge fracture — is a regional increase in forward curvature, and only amounts to sagittal imbalance once the rest of the spine and pelvis can no longer compensate. Flat back syndrome is the specific loss of the forward curve of the lower back, classically after older spinal fusions or through degeneration; it is one particular mechanism that produces global sagittal imbalance rather than a synonym for it. Proximal junctional kyphosis is a focal kyphotic failure at the upper end of a previous fusion construct that can secondarily tip a previously balanced spine into forward imbalance.

The Scoliosis Research Society–Schwab classification, validated in 2012, gives adult spinal deformity a common language. Alongside any coronal curve it grades three sagittal modifiers — PI–LL mismatch, the sagittal vertical axis, and pelvic tilt — each as normal, moderate or marked, with progressively worse grades shown to track with poorer quality of life and a greater likelihood of needing major surgery. The Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP) score, published in 2017, assesses whether the correction is proportionate to the individual's own pelvis, using pelvic-incidence-based proportional measurements together with age. It sorts spines into proportioned, moderately disproportioned and severely disproportioned, and was developed to predict mechanical complications after deformity surgery. Its central insight is that what matters is the proportion of correction relative to a person's own anatomy rather than hitting one fixed value, although later validation studies have found its predictive power to be more variable than the original work suggested.

A development of considerable practical importance has been the recognition that the ideal alignment for a spine is not the same at every age. Careful study of how alignment relates to disability across age groups showed that the ideal values for the sagittal vertical axis, pelvic tilt and PI–LL mismatch all increase with age. An older person can carry a somewhat more forward-set spine and still function well, whereas a younger person needs a more upright correction. Correcting an older spine too aggressively, to make it resemble that of a young adult, is associated with a higher rate of kyphotic failure at the top of a fusion. Matching the goal to the person's age has been shown to reduce that complication without sacrificing the improvement in quality of life.

A landmark study of several hundred adults with spinal deformity found that, of all the radiographic measurements considered, it was positive sagittal balance — the forward offset of the trunk measured by the sagittal vertical axis — that correlated most strongly with poorer scores on validated measures of pain, function and quality of life. The relationship was graded: the further forward the trunk had drifted, the worse the reported disability, and it held whether or not the spine had previously been fused. This finding reframed the whole field, establishing that the sagittal plane, rather than the coronal curve that the eye notices first, is where the burden of adult deformity largely lies.

The evidence base rests largely on prospective and retrospective cohort studies, radiographic-outcome correlations and classification work, rather than on randomised trials. Conservative, non-surgical management is the starting point for many people, particularly where imbalance is mild, well compensated, or where general health makes major surgery unwise. The reported approach centres on pain relief, physiotherapy directed at the hip and trunk muscles that share the work of balance, posture and activity modification, walking aids where helpful, and attention to bone health. Non-surgical care tends to stabilise symptoms and support function rather than to correct the underlying structure. Surgical realignment is described for more severe, decompensated or progressive deformity, and its goal is to restore proportionate lumbar lordosis matched to the individual's pelvic shape, and to bring global alignment back into an age-appropriate range. Where the spine is still mobile this may be achieved with releases and interbody techniques; where it is stiff or already fused, a wedge of bone is removed in an osteotomy, of which the pedicle subtraction osteotomy is the best known for fixed imbalance. The literature is candid that this is major surgery with a significant burden of complications including kyphosis above the fusion, breakage of metalwork and failure of bony union — which is precisely why age-adjusted targets and proportion-based scoring were developed.

Where the imbalance is mild and well compensated, many people remain comfortable and active for long periods with conservative measures, and the principal task is monitoring for progression. Where the spine has decompensated and the trunk is fixed in a forward stoop, the burden in terms of fatigue, pain and difficulty with everyday upright tasks can be considerable. For those who undergo realignment surgery, the published cohorts report meaningful gains in pain and function when balance is restored to an age-appropriate target, set against a real risk of mechanical complications. The consistent themes are that the sagittal plane is where most of the disability of adult deformity resides, and that correction should be proportionate to the individual and their age rather than aimed at a single universal ideal.

This page is general medical education and is not a substitute for individual advice. New or worsening weakness, numbness, saddle numbness or any disturbance of bladder or bowel control requires urgent assessment.

• —Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, et al. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine. 2005;30(18):2024–2029. PMID 16166889.
• —Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, et al. Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine. 2005;30(6):682–688. PMID 15770185.
• —Legaye J, Duval-Beaupère G, Hecquet J, Marty C. Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter. Eur Spine J. 1998;7(2):99–103. PMID 9629932.
• —Schwab F, Ungar B, Blondel B, et al. SRS–Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study. Spine. 2012;37(12):1077–1082. PMID 22045006.
• —Terran J, Schwab F, Shaffrey CI, et al. The SRS-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: assessment and clinical correlations. Neurosurgery. 2013;73(4):559–568. PMID 23756751.
• —Lafage V, Schwab F, Patel A, et al. Pelvic tilt and truncal inclination: two key radiographic parameters in adults with spinal deformity. Spine. 2009;34(17):E599–E606. PMID 19644319.
• —Protopsaltis T, Schwab F, Bronsard N, et al. The T1 pelvic angle, a novel radiographic measure of global sagittal deformity. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(19):1631–1640. PMID 25274788.
• —Lafage R, Schwab F, Challier V, et al. Defining spino-pelvic alignment thresholds: should operative goals account for age? Spine. 2016;41(1):62–68. PMID 26689395.
• —Lafage R, Schwab F, Glassman S, et al. Age-adjusted alignment goals have the potential to reduce PJK. Spine. 2017;42(17):1275–1282. PMID 28263226.
• —Yilgor C, Sogunmez N, Boissiere L, et al. Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP) score. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(19):1661–1672. PMID 28976431.
• —Jacobs E, van Royen BJ, van Kuijk SMJ, et al. External validation of the GAP score. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(4):891–895. PMID 30843118.
• —Barrey C, Roussouly P, Perrin G, Le Huec JC. Sagittal balance disorders in severe degenerative spine. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(Suppl 5):626–633. PMID 21796393.
• —Diebo BG, Ferrero E, Lafage R, et al. Recruitment of compensatory mechanisms in sagittal spinal malalignment. Spine. 2015;40(9):642–649. PMID 25608244.
• —Schwab F, Patel A, Ungar B, et al. Adult spinal deformity — postoperative standing imbalance. Spine. 2010;35(25):2224–2231. PMID 21102297.
• —Lagrone MO, Bradford DS, Moe JH, et al. Treatment of symptomatic flatback after spinal fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(4):569–580. PMID 3356723.
• —Booth KC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Complications and predictive factors for the successful treatment of flatback deformity. Spine. 1999;24(16):1712–1720. PMID 10472106.
• —Bridwell KH, Lewis SJ, Lenke LG, et al. Pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the treatment of fixed sagittal imbalance. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(3):454–463. PMID 12637431.
• —Glattes RC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis in adult spinal deformity following long instrumented posterior spinal fusion. Spine. 2005;30(14):1643–1649. PMID 16025035.
• —Kim HJ, Lenke LG, Shaffrey CI, et al. Proximal junctional kyphosis as a distinct form of adjacent segment pathology after spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review. Spine. 2012;37(22 Suppl):S144–S164. PMID 22885829.
• —Schwab F, Blondel B, Chay E, et al. The comprehensive anatomical spinal osteotomy classification. Neurosurgery. 2014;74(1):112–120. PMID 24356197.
• —Glassman SD, Berven S, Kostuik J, et al. Nonsurgical resource utilization in adult spinal deformity. Spine. 2006;31(8):941–947. PMID 16622386.
• —Le Huec JC, Thompson W, Mohsinaly Y, et al. Sagittal balance of the spine. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(9):1889–1905. PMID 31363930.
• —Diebo BG, Shah NV, Boachie-Adjei O, et al. Adult spinal deformity. Lancet. 2019;394(10193):160–172. PMID 31305254.
• —Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Bess S, et al. Recent and emerging advances in spinal deformity. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(3S):S70–S85. PMID 28350949.

This information is for general patient education and is not a substitute for an individual consultation. Always seek personalised advice from a qualified spinal specialist.