STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. OBJECTIVE: To compare variability in Cobb angle between digitally and traditionally acquired scoliosis radiographs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have shown that the 95% confidence interval for Cobb angle can vary from 2.6 degrees to 8.8 degrees. No study directly comparing Cobb angles measured from traditional and digitally acquired radiographs has been reported. METHODS: A spine model simulating 25 single right thoracic curves (range, 20 degrees-60 degrees) was imaged using traditional and digital techniques. Traditional films and miniaturized printed digital films were each measured twice manually. Digital films were also measured twice using computer imaging software. RESULTS: Overall mean angle and (95% confidence interval) were 41.7 degrees (39.1 degrees-44.3 degrees) for traditional, 40.6 degrees (37.4 degrees-43.8 degrees) for digital, and 39.7 degrees (36.3 degrees-43.1 degrees) for computer measurements. Overall correlation was 0.994 for traditional and digital, 0.987 for traditional and computer, and 0.993 for digital and computer. Fixed effect model analysis demonstrated that, although a statistically significant difference existed between the 3 methods of measuring the Cobb angle (P < 0.0001), the difference between methods was less than 2 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Any of the 3 evaluated methods of measurement can be used to measure Cobb angles. Additionally, the methods can be used interchangeably.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. OBJECTIVE: To compare variability in Cobb angle between digitally and traditionally acquired scoliosis radiographs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have shown that the 95% confidence interval for Cobb angle can vary from 2.6 degrees to 8.8 degrees. No study directly comparing Cobb angles measured from traditional and digitally acquired radiographs has been reported. METHODS: A spine model simulating 25 single right thoracic curves (range, 20 degrees-60 degrees) was imaged using traditional and digital techniques. Traditional films and miniaturized printed digital films were each measured twice manually. Digital films were also measured twice using computer imaging software. RESULTS: Overall mean angle and (95% confidence interval) were 41.7 degrees (39.1 degrees-44.3 degrees) for traditional, 40.6 degrees (37.4 degrees-43.8 degrees) for digital, and 39.7 degrees (36.3 degrees-43.1 degrees) for computer measurements. Overall correlation was 0.994 for traditional and digital, 0.987 for traditional and computer, and 0.993 for digital and computer. Fixed effect model analysis demonstrated that, although a statistically significant difference existed between the 3 methods of measuring the Cobb angle (P < 0.0001), the difference between methods was less than 2 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Any of the 3 evaluated methods of measurement can be used to measure Cobb angles. Additionally, the methods can be used interchangeably.