Tri Arief Sardjono1, Michael H F Wilkinson, Albert G Veldhuizen, Peter M A van Ooijen, Ketut E Purnama, Gijsbertus J Verkerke. 1. *Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, Jawa Timur, Indonesia; †Johann Bernoulli Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; ‡Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; §Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; ¶Department of Electrical Engineering, Institute of Technology Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS), Surabaya, Indonesia; ‖Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; and **Department of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Automatic measurement of Cobb angle in patients with scoliosis. OBJECTIVE: To test the accuracy of an automatic Cobb angle determination method from frontal radiographical images. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Thirty-six frontal radiographical images of patients with scoliosis. METHODS: A modified charged particle model is used to determine the curvature on radiographical spinal images. Three curve fitting methods, piece-wise linear, splines, and polynomials, each with 3 variants were used and evaluated for the best fit. The Cobb angle was calculated out of these curve fit lines and compared with a manually determined Cobb angle. The best-automated method is determined on the basis of the lowest mean absolute error and standard deviation, and the highest R2. RESULTS: The error of the manual Cobb angle determination among the 3 observers, determined as the mean of the standard deviations of all sets of measurements, was 3.37°. For the automatic method, the best piece-wise linear method is the 3-segments method. The best spline method is the 10-steps method. The best polynomial method is poly 6. Overall, the best automatic methods are the piece-wise linear method using 3 segments and the polynomial method using poly 6, with a mean absolute error of 4,26° and 3,91° a standard deviation of 3,44° and 3,60°, and a R2 of 0.9124 and 0.9175. The standard measurement error is significantly lower than the upper bound found in the literature (11.8°). CONCLUSION: The automatic Cobb angle method seemed to be better than the manual methods described in the literature. The piece-wise linear method using 3 segments and the polynomial method using poly 6 yield the 2 best results because the mean absolute error, standard deviation, and R2 are the best of all methods. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
STUDY DESIGN: Automatic measurement of Cobb angle in patients with scoliosis. OBJECTIVE: To test the accuracy of an automatic Cobb angle determination method from frontal radiographical images. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Thirty-six frontal radiographical images of patients with scoliosis. METHODS: A modified charged particle model is used to determine the curvature on radiographical spinal images. Three curve fitting methods, piece-wise linear, splines, and polynomials, each with 3 variants were used and evaluated for the best fit. The Cobb angle was calculated out of these curve fit lines and compared with a manually determined Cobb angle. The best-automated method is determined on the basis of the lowest mean absolute error and standard deviation, and the highest R2. RESULTS: The error of the manual Cobb angle determination among the 3 observers, determined as the mean of the standard deviations of all sets of measurements, was 3.37°. For the automatic method, the best piece-wise linear method is the 3-segments method. The best spline method is the 10-steps method. The best polynomial method is poly 6. Overall, the best automatic methods are the piece-wise linear method using 3 segments and the polynomial method using poly 6, with a mean absolute error of 4,26° and 3,91° a standard deviation of 3,44° and 3,60°, and a R2 of 0.9124 and 0.9175. The standard measurement error is significantly lower than the upper bound found in the literature (11.8°). CONCLUSION: The automatic Cobb angle method seemed to be better than the manual methods described in the literature. The piece-wise linear method using 3 segments and the polynomial method using poly 6 yield the 2 best results because the mean absolute error, standard deviation, and R2 are the best of all methods. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Authors: Brian H Cho; Deepak Kaji; Zoe B Cheung; Ivan B Ye; Ray Tang; Amy Ahn; Oscar Carrillo; John T Schwartz; Aly A Valliani; Eric K Oermann; Varun Arvind; Daniel Ranti; Li Sun; Jun S Kim; Samuel K Cho Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2019-08-13
Authors: Zongshan Hu; Claudio Vergari; Laurent Gajny; Zhen Liu; Tsz-Ping Lam; Zezhang Zhu; Yong Qiu; Gene C W Man; Kwong-Hang Yeung; Winnie C W Chu; Jack C Y Cheng; Wafa Skalli Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-07
Authors: Justin Iorio; Virginie Lafage; Renaud Lafage; Jensen K Henry; Dan Stein; Lawrence G Lenke; Munish Gupta; Michael P Kelly; Brenda Sides; Han Jo Kim Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2018-03-27