Ayse Livanelioglu1, Fatma Kaya2, Vugar Nabiyev3, Gokhan Demirkiran3, Tüzün Fırat4. 1. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Hacettepe University, 06100, Sıhhiye, Ankara, Turkey. alivanelioglu@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, State Hospital, Bandırma, Balıkesir, Turkey. 3. Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, 06100, Sıhhiye, Ankara, Turkey. 4. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Hacettepe University, 06100, Sıhhiye, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiological measurement has been accepted as the gold standard for evaluating scoliosis for many years. However, exposure of children to X-ray constitutes a major limitation of the radiological methods. Spinal Mouse (SM) is a safe, practical and easy to perform measurement of curvature in scoliosis, but its validity and reliability have not been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of Cobb angle and SM measurements in children with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). METHODS: Fifty-one patients with AIS who were followed up conservatively were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 14.4 years (9-18 years). Frontal plane curvatures were evaluated with SM by 2 physiotherapists and the results were compared with radiological measurements. Radiological measurements were performed by 2 orthopedists. RESULTS: All the measurements were of the thoraco-lumbar curve and the mean value was 35.08° according to Cobb angle measurement. There was no difference between the interobserver measurements of SM (p = 0.256) while the Cobb degrees measured by the 2 orthopedists was different (p = 0.0001). We did not find a statistically significant difference between Cobb measurements and the SM measurements of observer 1 and 2 (p = 0.505). The interobserver and intraobserver agreement of the Cobb and SM measurements was excellent (ICC = 0.872-0.962). When the differences between the evaluations were compared, the interobserver SM differences were seen to be lower than the interobserver Cobb angle differences (p = 0.003). The agreement between the Cobb and SM measurements was higher for curves over 40°. We found a strong or very strong relationship between measurements made with the Cobb and SM methods (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that SM can be used for research and patient follow-up in the clinic as a safe, reliable, quick, and easy to use method with no side effects although it cannot be the only factor to consider when determining the treatment plan of AIS patients.
PURPOSE: Radiological measurement has been accepted as the gold standard for evaluating scoliosis for many years. However, exposure of children to X-ray constitutes a major limitation of the radiological methods. Spinal Mouse (SM) is a safe, practical and easy to perform measurement of curvature in scoliosis, but its validity and reliability have not been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of Cobb angle and SM measurements in children with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). METHODS: Fifty-one patients with AIS who were followed up conservatively were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 14.4 years (9-18 years). Frontal plane curvatures were evaluated with SM by 2 physiotherapists and the results were compared with radiological measurements. Radiological measurements were performed by 2 orthopedists. RESULTS: All the measurements were of the thoraco-lumbar curve and the mean value was 35.08° according to Cobb angle measurement. There was no difference between the interobserver measurements of SM (p = 0.256) while the Cobb degrees measured by the 2 orthopedists was different (p = 0.0001). We did not find a statistically significant difference between Cobb measurements and the SM measurements of observer 1 and 2 (p = 0.505). The interobserver and intraobserver agreement of the Cobb and SM measurements was excellent (ICC = 0.872-0.962). When the differences between the evaluations were compared, the interobserver SM differences were seen to be lower than the interobserver Cobb angle differences (p = 0.003). The agreement between the Cobb and SM measurements was higher for curves over 40°. We found a strong or very strong relationship between measurements made with the Cobb and SM methods (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that SM can be used for research and patient follow-up in the clinic as a safe, reliable, quick, and easy to use method with no side effects although it cannot be the only factor to consider when determining the treatment plan of AIS patients.
Authors: Stefan Parent; Hubert Labelle; Wafa Skalli; Bruce Latimer; Jacques de Guise Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Michaela Gstoettner; Katrin Sekyra; Nadja Walochnik; Peter Winter; Roland Wachter; Christian M Bach Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2007-06-05 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Laura Cerón Lorente; María Carmen García Ríos; Santiago Navarro Ledesma; Rosa María Tapia Haro; Antonio Casas Barragán; María Correa-Rodríguez; María Encarnación Aguilar Ferrándiz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Éva Anett Csuhai; Attila Csaba Nagy; Zsuzsanna Váradi; Ilona Veres-Balajti Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Motahareh Hashem Boroojerdi; Abbas Rahimi; Mohammad Mohsen Roostayi; Saeed Moghaddam Talebian; Mohammad Yousefi; Edgar Shamounian; Mahmoud Norouzi Journal: J Biomed Phys Eng Date: 2021-06-01
Authors: Tomasz Kuligowski; Błażej Cieślik; Natalia Kuciel; Agnieszka Dębiec-Bąk; Anna Skrzek Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-28 Impact factor: 3.390