Literature DB >> 16429283

Rasterstereographic analysis of axial back surface rotation in standing versus forward bending posture in idiopathic scoliosis.

Lars Hackenberg1, Eberhard Hierholzer, Viola Bullmann, Ulf Liljenqvist, Christian Götze.   

Abstract

The forward bending test according to Adams and rib hump quantification by scoliometer are common clinical examination techniques in idiopathic scoliosis, although precise data about the change of axial surface rotation in forward bending posture are not available. In a pilot study the influence of leg length inequalities on the back shape of five normal subjects was clarified. Then 91 patients with idiopathic scoliosis with Cobb-angles between 20 degrees and 82 degrees were examined by rasterstereography, a 3D back surface analysis system. The axial back surface rotation in standing posture was compared with that in forward bending posture and additionally with a scoliometer measurement in forward bending posture. The changes of back shape in forward bending posture were correlated with the Cobb-angle, the level of the apex of the scoliotic primary curve and the age of the patient. Averaged over all patients, the back surface rotation amplitude increased from 23.1 degrees in standing to 26.3 degrees in forward bending posture. The standard deviation of this difference was high (6.1 degrees ). The correlation of back surface rotation amplitude in standing with that in forward bending posture was poor (R (2)=0.41) as was the correlation of back surface rotation in standing posture with the scoliometer in forward bending posture measured rotation (R (2)=0.35). No significant correlation could be found between the change of back shape in forward bending and the degree of deformity (R (2)=0.07), likewise no correlation with the height of the apex of the scoliosis (R (2)=0.005) and the age of the patient (R (2)=0.001). Before forward bending test leg length inequalities have to be compensated accurately. Compared to the standing posture, forward bending changes back surface rotation. However, this change varies greatly between patients, and is independent of the type and degree of scoliosis. Furthermore remarkable differences were found between scoliometer measurement of the rib hump and rasterstereographic measurement of the vertebral rotation. Therefore the forward bending test and the identification of idiopathic scoliosis rotation by scoliometer can be markedly different compared to rasterstereographic surface measurement in the standing posture.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16429283      PMCID: PMC3233931          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-005-0057-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  22 in total

1.  Evaluation of frontal radiographs of scoliotic spines--Part I. Measurement of position and orientation of vertebrae and assessment of clinical shape parameters.

Authors:  B Drerup; E Hierholzer
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Comparison of three noninvasive methods for measuring scoliosis.

Authors:  D J Pearsall; J G Reid; D M Hedden
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1992-09

3.  School screening for scoliosis.

Authors:  R G Burwell; J K Webb; E J Moore
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1981-10-17       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  An evaluation of the Adams forward bend test and the scoliometer in a scoliosis school screening setting.

Authors:  T W Grossman; J M Mazur; R J Cummings
Journal:  J Pediatr Orthop       Date:  1995 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.324

5.  Evaluation of frontal radiographs of scoliotic spines--Part II. Relations between lateral deviation, lateral tilt and axial rotation of vertebrae.

Authors:  B Drerup; E Hierholzer
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  Validity and reliability testing of the Scoliometer.

Authors:  L E Amendt; K L Ause-Ellias; J L Eybers; C T Wadsworth; D H Nielsen; S L Weinstein
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1990-02

7.  Measurement of the shape of the surface of the back in patients with scoliosis. The standing and forward-bending positions.

Authors:  I A Stokes; M S Moreland
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  A method for analysis of back shape in scoliosis.

Authors:  A R Turner-Smith; J D Harris; G R Houghton; R J Jefferson
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.712

9.  The changing pattern of scoliosis treatment due to effective screening.

Authors:  G Torell; A Nordwall; A Nachemson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1981-03       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  An assessment of the reliability of the Scoliometer.

Authors:  G A Murrell; R W Coonrad; C T Moorman; R D Fitch
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  [Radiation-free diagnosis of scoliosis : An overview of the surface and spine topography].

Authors:  M Betsch; M Wild; B Rath; M Tingart; A Schulze; V Quack
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  The effect of simulating leg length inequality on spinal posture and pelvic position: a dynamic rasterstereographic analysis.

Authors:  Marcel Betsch; Michael Wild; Birgit Große; Walter Rapp; Thomas Horstmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-07-17       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Patterns of coronal curve changes in forward bending posture: a 3D ultrasound study of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients.

Authors:  Wei Wei Jiang; Connie Lok Kan Cheng; Jason Pui Yin Cheung; Dino Samartzis; Kelly Ka Lee Lai; Michael Kai Tsun To; Yong Ping Zheng
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  No effect of osteopathic treatment on trunk morphology and spine flexibility in young women with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Carol Hasler; Caius Schmid; Andreas Enggist; Conny Neuhaus; Thomas Erb
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2010-04-18       Impact factor: 1.548

5.  Vertebral rotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis calculated by radiograph and back surface analysis-based methods: correlation between the Raimondi method and rasterstereography.

Authors:  Massimiliano Mangone; Paolo Raimondi; Marco Paoloni; Sabina Pellanera; Alessandra Di Michele; Sara Di Renzo; Mariangela Vanadia; Mauro Dimaggio; Massimiliano Murgia; Valter Santilli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-11-08       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  SOSORT 2012 consensus paper: reducing x-ray exposure in pediatric patients with scoliosis.

Authors:  Patrick Knott; Eden Pappo; Michelle Cameron; Jc Demauroy; Charles Rivard; Tomasz Kotwicki; Fabio Zaina; James Wynne; Luke Stikeleather; Josette Bettany-Saltikov; Theodoros B Grivas; Jacek Durmala; Toru Maruyama; Stefano Negrini; Joseph P O'Brien; Manuel Rigo
Journal:  Scoliosis       Date:  2014-04-25

7.  Rasterstereographic measurement of scoliotic deformity.

Authors:  Burkhard Drerup
Journal:  Scoliosis       Date:  2014-12-12

8.  Discrepancy between self-awareness and actual diagnosis and treatment of the conditions among adolescent with scoliosis in middle-school age.

Authors:  Wan-Hee Lee; Hyojeong Kang; Seong Yeol Kim
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2017-04-20

9.  Intra- and interday reliability of spine rasterstereography.

Authors:  Laura Guidetti; Valerio Bonavolontà; Alessandro Tito; Victor M Reis; Maria Chiara Gallotta; Carlo Baldari
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2013-06-02       Impact factor: 3.411

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.