Roger R Coleman1, Edward J Cremata2, Mark A Lopes3, Rick A Suttles4, Vaughn R Fairbanks5. 1. Director of Research, Gonstead Clinical Studies Society, Othello, WA. 2. Research Analyst, CREDO at Stanford University, Stanford, CA. 3. Private Practice, Chico, CA. 4. Mechanical Engineer, RS Mechanical Systems, Chico, CA. 5. Private Practice, Moses Lake, WA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this exploratory study was to evaluate the amount of error in retrolisthesis measurement due to measurement methods or projection factors inherent in spinal radiography. In addition, this study compared how accurately these methods determine positions of the lumbar vertebrae being studied and the expected projected size of the retrolisthesis. METHODS: Vertebral models were situated in a retrolisthesis position. Radiographs of the models were obtained in positive and negative y-axis rotations at 40- and 84-in focal film distances. The projected retrolisthesis was measured using the Gohl, Iguchi, and Lopes methods. RESULTS: At the 40-in focal film distance, the Iguchi method and Lopes methods were significantly more accurate than the Gohl method. At the 84-in focal film distance, the Lopes method was significantly more accurate than the Gohl method. Almost all measurements overestimated both the actual amount of retrolisthesis as well as the amount of trigonometrically calculated retrolisthesis that should have been present on the radiographs. Findings suggest that measurements were less accurate with vertebrae rotated more than 10°. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that lumbar vertebral rotation, focal film distance, and measurement methods are potential sources of error in retrolisthesis measurement.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this exploratory study was to evaluate the amount of error in retrolisthesis measurement due to measurement methods or projection factors inherent in spinal radiography. In addition, this study compared how accurately these methods determine positions of the lumbar vertebrae being studied and the expected projected size of the retrolisthesis. METHODS: Vertebral models were situated in a retrolisthesis position. Radiographs of the models were obtained in positive and negative y-axis rotations at 40- and 84-in focal film distances. The projected retrolisthesis was measured using the Gohl, Iguchi, and Lopes methods. RESULTS: At the 40-in focal film distance, the Iguchi method and Lopes methods were significantly more accurate than the Gohl method. At the 84-in focal film distance, the Lopes method was significantly more accurate than the Gohl method. Almost all measurements overestimated both the actual amount of retrolisthesis as well as the amount of trigonometrically calculated retrolisthesis that should have been present on the radiographs. Findings suggest that measurements were less accurate with vertebrae rotated more than 10°. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that lumbar vertebral rotation, focal film distance, and measurement methods are potential sources of error in retrolisthesis measurement.
Authors: Deed E Harrison; Donald D Harrison; Christopher J Colloca; Joseph Betz; Tadeusz J Janik; Burt Holland Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Stephen J Timon; Michael J Gardner; Tony Wanich; Ashley Poynton; Richard Pigeon; Roger F Widmann; Bernard A Rawlins; Stephen W Burke Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: M T Vogt; D Rubin; R S Valentin; L Palermo; W F Donaldson; M Nevitt; J A Cauley Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 1998-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Molly T Vogt; David A Rubin; Lisa Palermo; Lisa Christianson; James D Kang; Michael C Nevitt; Jane A Cauley Journal: Spine J Date: 2003 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.166