Literature DB >> 8219547

Reexamination of the Cobb and Ferguson angles: bigger is not always better.

I A Stokes1, D D Aronson, P J Ronchetti, H Labelle, J Dansereau.   

Abstract

In scoliosis, the Cobb measure of curve severity has been recommended over the Ferguson method because it had greater magnitude and appeared more sensitive to changes during progression and after treatment. This study made comparisons between the Cobb and Ferguson measures in radiographs of patients with idiopathic scoliosis to test whether the methods were really different, and to compare their precision. In 138 observations of 77 untreated patients there was a very high correlation (R2 = 0.98) between Cobb and Ferguson angle, with Cobb angle averaging 1.35 times greater. For sequential measures (mean interval 10 months), the percent changes agreed closely (R2 = 0.5). The relationship between Cobb and Ferguson angles remained the same in measurements of 24 patients wearing a brace compared with the unbraced condition and in 18 patients measured before and after Harrington rod surgery. Repeated measurements were made by three observers with the apex and end vertebrae pre-marked and held constant. For Cobb angle, the greatest range of measurements on any film was 8 degrees (pooled SD = 1.3 degrees). For Ferguson angle the greatest range was also 8 degrees (pooled SD = 1.8 degrees). Ferguson angle was slightly more sensitive to incorrect selection of end vertebrae. It was concluded that both methods can be useful for measuring curve magnitude. Ferguson angle should be measured and then adjusted by multiplying it by 1.35 in situations where Cobb angle measurement is technically difficult or invalid. Ferguson angle is better suited to automated measurement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8219547     DOI: 10.1097/00002517-199306040-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord        ISSN: 0895-0385


  7 in total

1.  The geometry of a circular arc does not accurately describe spinal curvature in scoliosis.

Authors:  Clayton J Adam
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.798

Review 2.  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

3.  A new quasi-invariant parameter characterizing the postural alignment of young asymptomatic adults.

Authors:  Celia Amabile; Hélène Pillet; Virginie Lafage; Cédric Barrey; Jean-Marc Vital; Wafa Skalli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Evaluation of spinal posture using Microsoft Kinect™: A preliminary case-study with 98 volunteers.

Authors:  A P G Castro; J D Pacheco; C Lourenço; S Queirós; A H J Moreira; N F Rodrigues; J L Vilaça
Journal:  Porto Biomed J       Date:  2016-12-27

5.  Accuracy and applicability of measurement of the scoliotic angle at the frontal plane by Cobb's method, by Ferguson's method and by a new method.

Authors:  K M Diab; J A Sevastik; R Hedlund; I A Suliman
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Approach for the smoothing of three-dimensional reconstructions of the human spine using dual Kriging interpolation.

Authors:  B André; F Trochu; J Dansereau
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 2.602

7.  Patient-specific mechanical properties of a flexible multi-body model of the scoliotic spine.

Authors:  Y Petit; C E Aubin; H Labelle
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.602

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.