Skip to main content
Log in

Loss of anterior concavity of the first sacrum can predict spinal involvement in ankylosing spondylitis

  • Short Communication - Validation Studies
  • Published:
Rheumatology International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we evaluated the frequency of squaring of the first sacrum (S1), defined as the loss of anterior concavity, in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). We also determined the interobserver reliability in the assessment of S1 squaring and the relationships of S1 squaring with MRI findings and the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS). To this end, we performed a retrospective study of 100 patients with AS (mean age 33.2 years; range 19–57 years) and 100 control patients (mean age 35.6 years; range 19–50 years). Four experienced radiologists independently assessed the presence of S1 squaring in the AS and control groups. The frequencies of S1 squaring as scored by the four observers were 47, 48, 46, and 42 in the AS group and 3, 6, 4, and 6 in the control group. The interobserver agreement among the four observers with respect to S1 squaring was excellent (κ value 0.80) in the AS group and fair to good (κ value 0.61) in the control group. In patients with AS, the presence of S1 squaring showed fair to good agreement with the MRI changes (κ value 0.74). Moreover, the mSASSSs of patients with versus without S1 squaring were significantly different (mean 23.9 vs 7.0, p < 0.001). In conclusion, S1 squaring is relatively common in patients with AS. Moreover, S1 squaring is closely correlated with MRI changes and significantly associated with the mSASSS. Assessment of S1 squaring could be a simple method that is potentially useful for predicting early spinal structural involvement in patients with AS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Sieper J, Braun J, Rudwaleit M, Boonen A, Zink A (2002) Ankylosing spondylitis: an overview. Ann Rheum Dis 61(Suppl 3):iii8–iii18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Landewe R, Dougados M, Mielants H, van der Tempel H, van der Heijde D (2009) Physical function in ankylosing spondylitis is independently determined by both disease activity and radiographic damage of the spine. Ann Rheum Dis 68:863–867

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wanders A, Landewe R, Dougados M, Mielants H, van der Linden S, van der Heijde D (2005) Association between radiographic damage of the spine and spinal mobility for individual patients with ankylosing spondylitis: can assessment of spinal mobility be a proxy for radiographic evaluation? Ann Rheum Dis 64:988–994

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. MacKay K, Mack C, Brophy S, Calin A (1998) The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiology Index (BASRI): a new, validated approach to disease assessment. Arthritis Rheum 41:2263–2270

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Taylor HG, Wardle T, Beswick EJ, Dawes PT (1991) The relationship of clinical and laboratory measurements to radiological change in ankylosing spondylitis. Br J Rheumatol 30:330–335

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dawes PT (1999) Stoke ankylosing spondylitis spine score. J Rheumatol 26:993–996

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Averns HL, Oxtoby J, Taylor HG, Jones PW, Dziedzic K, Dawes PT (1996) Radiological outcome in ankylosing spondylitis: use of the Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (SASSS). Br J Rheumatol 35:373–376

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wanders AJ, Landewe RB, Spoorenberg A, Dougados M, van der Linden S, Mielants H, van der Tempel H, van der Heijde DM (2004) What is the most appropriate radiologic scoring method for ankylosing spondylitis? A comparison of the available methods based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials filter. Arthritis Rheum 50:2622–2632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Spoorenberg A, de Vlam K, van der Linden S, Dougados M, Mielants H, van de Tempel H, van der Heijde D (2004) Radiological scoring methods in ankylosing spondylitis. Reliability and change over 1 and 2 years. J Rheumatol 31:125–132

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Creemers MC, Franssen MJ, van’t Hof MA, Gribnau FW, Van de Putte LB, van Riel PL (2005) Assessment of outcome in ankylosing spondylitis: an extended radiographic scoring system. Ann Rheum Dis 64:127–129

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ralston SH, Urquhart GD, Brzeski M, Sturrock RD (1992) A new method for the radiological assessment of vertebral squaring in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 51:330–333

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. van der Linden S, Valkenburg HA, Cats A (1984) Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis. A proposal for modification of the New York criteria. Arthritis Rheum 27:361–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sieper J, van der Heijde D, Landewe R, Brandt J, Burgos-Vagas R, Collantes-Estevez E, Dijkmans B, Dougados M, Khan MA, Leirisalo-Repo M, van der Linden S, Maksymowych WP, Mielants H, Olivieri I, Rudwaleit M (2009) New criteria for inflammatory back pain in patients with chronic back pain: a real patient exercise by experts from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS). Ann Rheum Dis 68:784–788

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Madsen KB, Jurik AG (2010) MRI grading method for active and chronic spinal changes in spondyloarthritis. Clin Radiol 65:6–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fleiss JL (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76:378–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fleiss JL (1981) Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd edn. John Wiley, New York, pp 38–46

    Google Scholar 

  17. Landis JR, Koch GG (1997) An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 33:363–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cicchetti DV (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6:284–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim TJ, Kim HS, Joo KB, Kim S, Kim TH (2008) Do we really need to evaluate entire cervical spines for squaring score in modified stoke ankylosing spondylitis spinal score? J Rheumatol 35:477–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ward MM, Learch TJ, Weisman MH (2012) Cervical vertebral squaring in patients without spondyloarthritis. J Rheumatol 39:1900

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Aufdermaur M (1989) Pathogenesis of square bodies in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 48:628–631

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Resnick D (2002) Ankylosing spondylitis. In: Resnick D. Diagnosis of bone and joint disorders, Vol. 2. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, pp 1023-1081

  23. Baraliakos X, Listing J, Rudwaleit M, Sieper J, Braun J (2009) Development of a radiographic scoring tool for ankylosing spondylitis only based on bone formation: addition of the thoracic spine improves sensitivity to change. Arthritis Rheum 61:764–771

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seunghun Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, J.Y., Lee, S., Joo, K.B. et al. Loss of anterior concavity of the first sacrum can predict spinal involvement in ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatol Int 36, 161–165 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-015-3359-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-015-3359-1

Keywords

Navigation