Literature DB >> 30535658

Intrasubject repeatability of in vivo intervertebral motion parameters using quantitative fluoroscopy.

Alexander Breen1, Rebecca Hemming2, Fiona Mellor1, Alan Breen3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In vivo quantification of intervertebral motion through imaging has progressed to a point where biomarkers for low back pain are emerging. This makes possible deeper study of the condition's biometrics. However, the measurement of change over time involves error. The purpose of this prospective investigation is to determine the intrasubject repeatability of six in vivo intervertebral motion parameters using quantitative fluoroscopy.
METHODS: Intrasubject reliability (ICC) and minimal detectable change (MDC) of baseline to 6-week follow-up measurements were calculated for six lumbar spine intervertebral motion parameters in 109 healthy volunteers. A standardised quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) protocol was used to provide measurements in the coronal and sagittal planes using both passive recumbent and active weight-bearing motion. Parameters were: intervertebral range of motion (IV-RoM), laxity, motion sharing inequality (MSI), motion sharing variability (MSV), flexion translation and anterior disc height change during flexion.
RESULTS: The best overall intrasubject reliability (ICC) and agreement (MDC) were for disc height (ICC 0.89, MDC 43%) and IV-RoM (ICC 0.96, MDC 60%), and the worst for MSV (ICC 0.04, MDC 408%). Laxity, MSI and translation had acceptable reliability (most ICCs > 0.60), but not agreement (MDC > 85%).
CONCLUSION: Disc height and IV-RoM measurement using QF could be considered for randomised trials, while laxity, MSI and translation could be considered for moderators, correlates or mediators of patient-reported outcomes. MSV had both poor reliability and agreement over 6 weeks. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Kinematics; Low back pain; Quantitative imaging biomarkers; Spinal surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30535658     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-5849-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  41 in total

1.  Three-dimensional lumbar spinal kinematics: a study of range of movement in 100 healthy subjects aged 20 to 60+ years.

Authors:  G Van Herp; P Rowe; P Salter; J P Paul
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 7.580

2.  Precision measurement of disc height, vertebral height and sagittal plane displacement from lateral radiographic views of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  W. Frobin; P. Brinckmann; M. Biggemann; M. Tillotson; K. Burton
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 2.063

3.  Segmental mobility of the lumbar spine during a posterior to anterior mobilization: assessment using dynamic MRI.

Authors:  Christopher M Powers; Kornelia Kulig; James Harrison; Gabrielle Bergman
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.063

4.  Clinical spinal instability and low back pain.

Authors:  Manohar M Panjabi
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 2.368

Review 5.  What can the history and physical examination tell us about low back pain?

Authors:  R A Deyo; J Rainville; D L Kent
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-08-12       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Lumbar instability and clinical symptoms: which is the more critical factor for symptoms: sagittal translation or segment angulation?

Authors:  Tetsuhiro Iguchi; Aritetsu Kanemura; Koichi Kasahara; Keizo Sato; Akira Kurihara; Shinichi Yoshiya; Kotaro Nishida; Hiroshi Miyamoto; Minoru Doita
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2004-08

7.  When to use agreement versus reliability measures.

Authors:  Henrica C W de Vet; Caroline B Terwee; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Reduced variability of postural strategy prevents normalization of motor changes induced by back pain: a risk factor for chronic trouble?

Authors:  G Lorimer Moseley; Paul W Hodges
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.912

9.  Abnormal instantaneous axes of rotation in patients with neck pain.

Authors:  B Amevo; C Aprill; N Bogduk
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  An objective spinal motion imaging assessment (OSMIA): reliability, accuracy and exposure data.

Authors:  Alan C Breen; Jennifer M Muggleton; Fiona E Mellor
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2006-01-04       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparison of intra subject repeatability of quantitative fluoroscopy and static radiography in the measurement of lumbar intervertebral flexion translation.

Authors:  Alexander Breen; Emilie Claerbout; Rebecca Hemming; Ravi Ayer; Alan Breen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  Investigator analytic repeatability of two new intervertebral motion biomarkers for chronic, nonspecific low back pain in a cohort of healthy controls.

Authors:  Daphne To; Alexander Breen; Alan Breen; Silvano Mior; Samuel J Howarth
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2020-11-24

3.  What is the most appropriate method for the measurement of the range of motion in the lumbar spine and how does surgical fixation affect the range of movement of the lumbar spine in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? A systematic review protocol.

Authors:  Laura Hartley; Mattia Zappalà; Uzo Ehiogu; Nicola R Heneghan; Adrian Gardner
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2022-09-30
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.