Literature DB >> 17340228

Validity and reliability of active shape models for the estimation of cobb angle in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Shannon Allen1, Eric Parent, Maziyar Khorasani, Douglas L Hill, Edmond Lou, James V Raso.   

Abstract

Choosing the most suitable treatment for scoliosis relies heavily on accurate and reproducible Cobb angle measurement from successive radiographs. The objective is to reduce variability of Cobb angle measurement by reducing user intervention and bias. Custom software to increase automation of the Cobb angle measurement from posteroanterior radiographs was developed using active shape models. Validity and reliability of the automated system against a manual and semiautomated measurement method was conducted by two examiners each performing measurements on three occasions from a test set (N = 22). A training set (N = 47) of radiographs representative of curves seen in a scoliosis clinic was used to train the software to recognize vertebrae from T4 to L4. Images with a maximum Cobb angle between 20 degrees and 50 degrees , excluding surgical cases, were selected for training and test sets. Automated Cobb angles were calculated using best-fit slopes of the detected vertebrae endplates. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) showed high intraexaminer (ICC > 0.90, SEM 2 degrees -3 degrees ) and interexaminer (ICC > 0.82, SEM 2 degrees -4 degrees ), but poor intermethod reliability (ICC = 0.30, SEM 8 degrees -9 degrees ). The automated method underestimated large curves. The reliability improved (ICC = 0.70, SEM 4 degrees -5 degrees ) with exclusion of the four largest curves (>40 degrees ) in the test set. The automated method was reliable for moderate-sized curves, and did detect vertebrae in larger curves with a modified training set of larger curves.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 17340228      PMCID: PMC3043859          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-007-9026-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  8 in total

Review 1.  Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria.

Authors:  Neil Aaronson; Jordi Alonso; Audrey Burnam; Kathleen N Lohr; Donald L Patrick; Edward Perrin; Ruth E Stein
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Computer-assisted Cobb measurement of scoliosis.

Authors:  Nachiappan Chockalingam; Peter H Dangerfield; Giannis Giakas; Tom Cochrane; John C Dorgan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2002-03-15       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  A comparison of traditional protractor versus Oxford Cobbometer radiographic measurement: intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles.

Authors:  Michael P Rosenfeldt; Ian J Harding; Jennifer T Hauptfleisch; Jeremy T Fairbank
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  A comparison of radiographic and electrogoniometric angles in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  S A Mior; D R Kopansky-Giles; E R Crowther; J G Wright
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  A comparison of manual versus computer-assisted radiographic measurement. Intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles.

Authors:  K G Shea; P M Stevens; M Nelson; J T Smith; K S Masters; S Yandow
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Declare your ICC type.

Authors:  D E Krebs
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1986-09

Review 7.  Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  J E Lonstein
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1994-11-19       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  The assessment of intraobserver and interobserver error in the measurement of noncongenital scoliosis in children < or = 10 years of age.

Authors:  Randall T Loder; David Spiegel; Sarah Gutknecht; Kenneth Kleist; Thuan Ly; Amir Mehbod
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

  8 in total
  9 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Computer-aided assessment of scoliosis on posteroanterior radiographs.

Authors:  Junhua Zhang; Edmond Lou; Douglas L Hill; James V Raso; Yuanyuan Wang; Lawrence H Le; Xinling Shi
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2009-12-10       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Automatic Cobb measurement of scoliosis based on fuzzy Hough Transform with vertebral shape prior.

Authors:  Junhua Zhang; Edmond Lou; Lawrence H Le; Douglas L Hill; James V Raso; Yuanyuan Wang
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-05-31       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Automatic quantification of spinal curvature in scoliotic radiograph using image processing.

Authors:  Anitha H; G K Prabhu
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 4.460

Review 5.  Measuring procedures to determine the Cobb angle in idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review.

Authors:  S Langensiepen; O Semler; R Sobottke; O Fricke; J Franklin; E Schönau; P Eysel
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Magnetically controlled growing rods in the management of early onset scoliosis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Filippo Migliorini; Wai On Chiu; Raffaele Scrofani; Wai Kwong Chiu; Alice Baroncini; Giorgio Iaconetta; Nicola Maffulli
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-06-11       Impact factor: 2.677

7.  Spinal phantom comparability study of Cobb angle measurement of scoliosis using digital radiographic imaging.

Authors:  Ni Chung; Yi-Hong Cheng; Hiu-Lam Po; Wai-Kit Ng; Kam-Ching Cheung; Ho-Yin Yung; Yau-Ming Lai
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 5.191

8.  A Semi-Automatic Algorithm for Estimating Cobb Angle.

Authors:  Safari A; Parsaei H; Zamani A; Pourabbas B
Journal:  J Biomed Phys Eng       Date:  2019-06-01

9.  Reliability of Preoperative Planning Method That Considers Latent Medial Joint Laxity in Medial Open-Wedge Proximal Tibial Osteotomy.

Authors:  Dong Jin Ryu; Sung-Sahn Lee; Eui Yub Jung; Joo Hwan Kim; Tae Soo Shin; Joon Ho Wang
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-10-05
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.