Psoas Morphology Differs between Supine and Sitting Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lumbar Spine: Implications for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Retrospective radiological review. To quantify the effect of sitting vs supine lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and change in anterior displacement of the psoas muscle from L1-L2 to L4-L5 discs. Controversy exists in determining patient suitability for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) based on psoas morphology. The effect of posture on psoas morphology has not previously been studied; however, lumbar MRI may be performed in sitting or supine positions. A retrospective review of a single-spine practice over 6 months was performed, identifying patients aged between 18-90 years with degenerative spinal pathologies and lumbar MRIs were evaluated. Previous lumbar fusion, scoliosis, neuromuscular disease, skeletal immaturity, or intrinsic abnormalities of the psoas muscle were excluded. The anteroposterior (AP) dimension of the psoas muscle and intervertebral disc were measured at each intervertebral disc from L1-L2 to L4-L5, and the AP psoas:disc ratio calculated. The morphology was compared between patients undergoing sitting and/or supine MRI. Two hundred and nine patients were identified with supine-, and 60 patients with sitting-MRIs, of which 13 patients had undergone both sitting and supine MRIs (BOTH group). A propensity score match (PSM) was performed for patients undergoing either supine or sitting MRI to match for age, BMI, and gender to produce two groups of 43 patients. In the BOTH and PSM group, sitting MRI displayed significantly higher AP psoas:disc ratio compared with supine MRI at all intervertebral levels except L1-L2. The largest difference observed was a mean 32%-37% increase in sitting AP psoas:disc ratio at the L4-L5 disc in sitting compared to supine in the BOTH group (range, 0%-137%). The psoas muscle and the lumbar plexus become anteriorly displaced in sitting MRIs, with a greater effect noted at caudal intervertebral discs. This may have implications in selecting suitability for LLIF, and intra-operative patient positioning.