Literature DB >> 15385876

Segmental lumbar lordosis: manual versus computer-assisted measurement using seven different techniques.

Thomas C Schuler1, Brian R Subach, Charles L Branch, Kevin T Foley, J Kenneth Burkus.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Obliteration of end-plate landmarks by interbody fusion has made the traditional measurement of segmental lumbar lordosis nearly impossible. Because the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels are most likely to be subjected to fusion procedures or arthroplasty and contribute to more than half of normal lumbar lordosis, it is crucial to identify a reproducible and accurate means of measuring segmental lordosis at these levels.
METHODS: Twelve spinal surgeons measured lordosis at L4-L5 and L5-S1 on 10 separate radiographs using three techniques for L4-L5 and four techniques for L5-S1. With use of identical radiographs, measurements first were made using a manual method and then were repeated with a computer-assisted method. Measurements were analyzed for both intraobserver and interobserver error.
RESULTS: The individual data demonstrated an intraobserver variance of 9.56 and a standard deviation of 3.092 for computerized measurements compared with 7.742 and 2.782 for manual measurements. The interobserver variance was 4.107 with a standard deviation of 2.027 for the computerized group compared with 4.221 and 2.055 for manual measurements. When analyzed as a group to evaluate interobserver error, the pooled data yielded variance of 19.235 for the computerized group and 19.117 for the manual measurements.
CONCLUSIONS: Variance calculations identified the Cobb technique and the posterior vertebral body technique as the least variable measurement techniques for the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels, respectively; however, there was no statistical significance. In direct comparison, the manual and computer-assisted techniques were found to be statistically equivalent with similar degrees of variance. We believe that the anterior vertebral technique, which did not demonstrate a significant difference from other techniques, will prove to be the most reliable method of assessing segmental lumbar lordosis in patients before surgery, after interbody fusion, and after motion-sparing disc arthroplasty.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15385876     DOI: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000109836.59382.47

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  5 in total

Review 1.  CT evaluation of lumbar interbody fusion: current concepts.

Authors:  Alan L Williams; Matthew F Gornet; J Kenneth Burkus
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 2.  A review of methods for quantitative evaluation of spinal curvature.

Authors:  Tomaz Vrtovec; Franjo Pernus; Bostjan Likar
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Lumbar lordosis in osteoporosis and in osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Michael Papadakis; Georgios Papadokostakis; Konstantinos Stergiopoulos; Nikos Kampanis; Pavlos Katonis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-12-17       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  The association of spinal osteoarthritis with lumbar lordosis.

Authors:  Michael Papadakis; Georgios Papadokostakis; Nikos Kampanis; Georgios Sapkas; Stamatios A Papadakis; Pavlos Katonis
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-01-02       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Oblique insertion of a straight cage during single level TLIF procedure proves to be non-inferior in terms of restoring segmental lordosis.

Authors:  Peter Truckenmueller; Marcus Czabanka; Simon H Bayerl; Robert Mertens; Peter Vajkoczy
Journal:  Brain Spine       Date:  2021-10-16
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.