Literature DB >> 8581530

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.

K M Diab1, J A Sevastik, R Hedlund, I A Suliman.   

Abstract

A new method for the measurement of scoliotic curves in antero-posterior (AP) radiographs is presented, in which the centre of the surface image of the vertebral bodies of the apical and two end vertebrae of the curvature are defined on the basis of geometric principles. Measurements using the Cobb, the Ferguson, and the new method were performed on ten AP radiographs from each of three groups of young patients with right convex thoracic idiopathic scoliosis with Cobb angles of between 7 and 15 degrees, 16 and 45 degrees and 46 and 80 degrees, respectively. Measurements using the Cobb method yielded significantly higher values than measurements using either the Ferguson method or the new method. In curves with Cobb angles of between 7 and 15 degrees, the values using Ferguson's method were significantly lower than those using the new method; the difference increased significantly in curves with a Cobb angle of 16 degrees or more. The level of significance of the intra- and interobserver differences between the new, the Cobb and the Ferguson methods was significantly higher in curves with a Cobb angle of 16 degrees or more. It is argued that measures of the scoliotic angle obtained by the new method are of greater clinical relevance than those obtained by the two other methods. Unlike the Cobb method, the new method takes into consideration the translation of the apical vertebra in relation to the end vertebrae and not only the tilt of the end vertebrae of the curve. As compared to the Ferguson method, the new method is based on standardised geometric principles, and is not influenced by changes in the shape of the vertebral body. Moreover, the repeatability of the new method is greater than that of both the Cobb method and the Ferguson method. Therefore, it is believed that the new method provides a more accurate measure of the scoliotic curve than do the two other methods, and it is to be preferred over the other two methods in longitudinal evaluation of the development of the curve.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8581530     DOI: 10.1007/bf00301037

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


  13 in total

1.  Measurement of spinal curvatures.

Authors:  W H McAlister; G D Shackelford
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  1975-04       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Curves and angles. A comparison of scoliosis measurement.

Authors:  R LUSSKIN
Journal:  Clin Orthop       Date:  1962

3.  Measurement of scoliosis and kyphosis radiographs. Intraobserver and interobserver variation.

Authors:  D L Carman; R H Browne; J G Birch
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Measurement of the Cobb angle on radiographs of patients who have scoliosis. Evaluation of intrinsic error.

Authors:  R T Morrissy; G S Goldsmith; E C Hall; D Kehl; G H Cowie
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Variability of scoliosis measurement from spinal roentgenograms.

Authors:  C E Beekman; V Hall
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1979-06

6.  Evaluation of the reliability of radiological methods for registration of scoliosis.

Authors:  J A Sevastikoglou; E Bergquist
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1969

7.  Measurement of scoliosis.

Authors:  A C Kittleson; L W Lim
Journal:  Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med       Date:  1970-04

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

Authors:  I A Stokes; D D Aronson; P J Ronchetti; H Labelle; J Dansereau
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1993-08

9.  Standing and supine Cobb measures in girls with idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  G Torell; A Nachemson; K Haderspeck-Grib; A Schultz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  A clinical study of the differences between the scoliotic angles measured on posteroanterior and anteroposterior radiographs.

Authors:  A A DeSmet; J E Goin; M A Asher; H G Scheuch
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  10 in total

1.  Measurement Performance of a Computer Assisted Vertebral Motion Analysis System.

Authors:  Reginald J Davis; David C Lee; Chip Wade; Boyle Cheng
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

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.  Automatic quantification of spinal curvature in scoliotic radiograph using image processing.

Authors:  Anitha H; G K Prabhu
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 4.460

4.  The effect of scoliosis surgery on pulmonary function in spinal muscular atrophy type II patients.

Authors:  Shih-Hsiang Chou; Gau-Tyan Lin; Po-Chih Shen; Yi-Jing Lue; Cheng-Chang Lu; Yin-Chun Tien; Yen-Mou Lu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Contour and Angle-Function Based Scoliosis Monitoring: Relaxing the Requirement on Image Quality in the Measurement of Spinal Curvature.

Authors:  Pierino G Bonanni
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-06-30

6.  Variability in Flexion Extension Radiographs of the Lumbar Spine: A Comparison of Uncontrolled and Controlled Bending.

Authors:  Boyle Cheng; Anthony E Castellvi; Reginald J Davis; David C Lee; Morgan P Lorio; Richard E Prostko; Chip Wade
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-05-16

7.  Comparison of scoliosis measurements based on three-dimensional vertebra vectors and conventional two-dimensional measurements: advantages in evaluation of prognosis and surgical results.

Authors:  Tamás Illés; Szabolcs Somoskeöy
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-01-23       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Reliability analysis for manual measurement of coronal plane deformity in adolescent scoliosis. Are 30 x 90 cm plain films better than digitized small films?

Authors:  Antonio De Carvalho; Raphaël Vialle; Laurent Thomsen; Julien Amzallag; Guillaume Cluzel; Hubert Ducou le Pointe; Pierre Mary
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-07-10       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Image analysis in medical imaging: recent advances in selected examples.

Authors:  G Dougherty
Journal:  Biomed Imaging Interv J       Date:  2010-07-01

10.  Predictors for Deformity Progression in a Spinal Muscular Atrophy Cohort After Scoliosis Correction Surgery.

Authors:  Po-Chih Shen; Cheng-Chang Lu; Wen-Chen Liang; Yin-Chun Tien; Yuh-Jyh Jong; Yen-Mou Lu; Zi-Miao Liu; Chia-Lung Shih; Shih-Hsiang Chou
Journal:  Clin Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 1.723

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.