The answer to the question is that they don't use that formula for calculating the capacitance of the rolled up capacitors. The definition of the capacitance of a conductor is the amount of charge needed to bring a conductor to an electric potential, $V$, is proportional to the potential:$$Q = CV,$$ and the constant of proportionality is capacitance. For example, an isolated conducting sphere of radius $R$ has capacitance: $C = 4\pi R \epsilon_0$. You can do a similar calculation to show that the capacitance per unit length of an infinitely long cylinder with radius $a$ inside of a grounded cylinder of radius $b$ is: $$\frac{C}{L} = \frac{2\pi\epsilon_0}{ \ln\left(\frac{b}{a}\right)}.$$
So, a rolled up capacitor, with two commingled spirals, will have a somewhat complicated expression for the capacitance that can probably only be calculated numerically, if a prediction of a given form is desired. In practice, I would imagine that the firms responsible for making these devices have empirical measurements of capacitance for the rolled up geometries as a function of factors like the tightness of the winding, length of cylinder, etc.
Though the cylinder expression is straightforward to turn into an approximation that reduces to $C = \epsilon_0 A/d$ if you use $b=d + a$ and $d \ll a$. So, as long as the distance between the spirals is much smaller than all of:
- the width of the plates,
- the length of the spirals, and
- the radius of curvature of the spiral for the whole curve,
the parallel plate approximation should work.
The extent to which these conditions do not hold lead to departures from the approximation, but not from the basic definition of capacitance, $Q = CV$.