Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Thoracic kyphosis assessment in postmenopausal women: an examination of the Flexicurve method in comparison to radiological methods

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

The Flexicurve ruler is an alternative method to radiographs for measuring thoracic kyphosis (curvature), but it is not certain that it is comparable. This study shows that Flexicurve can estimate radiographic vertebral centroid angles with less error than Cobb angles but that its accuracy would be inadequate for most clinical purposes.

Introduction

The Flexicurve ruler provides a non-radiological method of measuring thoracic kyphosis (TK) that has moderately strong correlations with the gold-standard radiographic Cobb angle method, while consistently underestimating the TK angle. Cobb angles can include measurement errors that may contribute to poor agreement, particularly in older populations. The vertebral centroid angle could be a better radiographic reference method for the validation of Flexicurve. Using two separate radiographic measurements of TK, we examined the validity of Flexicurve. We aimed to ascertain the level of agreement between measures and to empirically explore reasons for between-method differences.

Methods

TK angles determined using Flexicurve and radiographic Cobb and vertebral centroid methods were compared using data from 117 healthy postmenopausal women (mean (SD) age 61.4 (7.0) years). Bland and Altman plots were used to assess differences between methods. Age, bone mineral density and body mass index were examined as characteristics that might explain any differences.

Results

Flexicurve angles were scaled prior to analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between angles produced by Flexicurve and vertebral centroid methods (MD − 2.16°, 95%CI − 4.35° to 0.03°) although differences increased proportionally with TK angles. Flexicurve angles were significantly smaller than radiographic Cobb angles and depending on the scaling method used, systematic error ranged between − 2.48° and − 5.19°. Age accounts for some of the differences observed (R2 < 0.08, p < 0.005).

Conclusions

TK measured using the Flexicurve shows better agreement with the radiographic vertebral centroid method, but inaccuracy of the Flexicurve increases with increasing angle of kyphosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fon GT, Pitt MJ, Thies AC Jr (1980) Thoracic kyphosis: range in normal subjects. Am J Roentgenol 134(5):979–983. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.134.5.979

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Milne JS, Williamson J (1983) A longitudinal study of kyphosis in older people. Age Ageing 12(3):225–233

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Puche RC, Morosano M, Masoni A, Jimeno NP, Bertoluzzo SM, Podadera JC, Podadera MA, Bocanera R, Tozzini R (1995) The natural history of kyphosis in postmenopausal women. Bone 17(3):239–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/8756-3282(95)00212-v

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Greendale GA, Nili NS, Huang MH, Seeger L, Karlamangla AS (2011) The reliability and validity of three non-radiological measures of thoracic kyphosis and their relations to the standing radiological cobb angle. Osteoporos Int 22(6):1897–1905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1422-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fortin C, Feldman DE, Cheriet F, Labelle H (2011) Clinical methods for quantifying body segment posture: a literature review. Disabil Rehabil 33(5):367–383. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2010.492066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Azadinia F, Kamyab M, Behtash H, Saleh Ganjavian M, Javaheri MR (2014) The validity and reliability of noninvasive methods for measuring kyphosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 27(6):E212–E218. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31829a3574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barrett E, McCreesh K, Lewis J (2014) Reliability and validity of non-radiographic methods of thoracic kyphosis measurement: a systematic review. Man Ther 19(1):10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2013.09.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Barrett E, Lenehan B, O'Sullivan K, Lewis J, McCreesh K (2018) Validation of the manual inclinometer and flexicurve for the measurement of thoracic kyphosis. Physiother Theory Pract 34(4):301–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2017.1394411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tran TH, Wing D, Davis A, Bergstrom J, Schousboe JT, Nichols JF, Kado DM (2016) Correlations among four measures of thoracic kyphosis in older adults. Osteoporos Int 27(3):1255–1259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3368-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Seidi F, Rajabi R, Ebrahimi I, Alizadeh MH, Minoonejad H (2014) The efficiency of corrective exercise interventions on thoracic hyper-kyphosis angle. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 27:7–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Teixeira F, Carvalho GA (2007) Reliability and validity of thoracic kyphosis measurements using flexicurve method. Rev Bras Fis 11:199–204

    Google Scholar 

  12. de Oliveira TS, Candotti CT, La Torre M, Pelinson PP, Furlanetto TS, Kutchak FM, Loss JF (2012) Validity and reproducibility of the measurements obtained using the flexicurve instrument to evaluate the angles of thoracic and lumbar curvatures of the spine in the sagittal plane. Rehabil Res Pract 2012:186156. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/186156

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Raupp EG, Candotti CT, Marchetti BV, Vieira A, Medeiros FS, Loss JF (2017) The validity and reproducibility of the Flexicurve in the evaluation of cervical spine lordosis. J Manip Physiol Ther 40(7):501–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2017.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Briggs A, Wrigley T, Tully E, Adams P, Greig A, Bennell K (2007) Radiographic measures of thoracic kyphosis in osteoporosis: cobb and vertebral centroid angles. Skelet Radiol 36(8):761–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-007-0284-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Carman DL, Browne RH, Birch JG (1990) Measurement of scoliosis and kyphosis radiographs. Intraobserver and interobserver variation. J Bone Joint Surg 72(3):328–333

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. McAlister WH, Shackelford GD (1975) Measurement of spinal curvatures. Radiol Clin N Am 13:113–121

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lewis SJ, Dear TE, Zywiel MG, Keshen SG, Rampersaud YR, Magana SP (2016) T12 sagittal tilt predicts thoracic kyphosis. Spine Deform 4(2):112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2015.10.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harrison DE, Cailliet R, Harrison DD, Janik TJ, Holland B (2001) Reliability of centroid, cobb, and Harrison posterior tangent methods: which to choose for analysis of thoracic kyphosis. Spine 26(11):E227–E234

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Janik TJ, Holland B (2001) Radiographic analysis of lumbar lordosis: centroid, cobb, TRALL, and Harrison posterior tangent methods. Spine 26(11):E235–E242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen YL (1999) Vertebral centroid measurement of lumbar lordosis compared with the cobb technique. Spine 24(17):1786–1790

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Spencer L, Briffa K (2013) Breast size, thoracic kyphosis & thoracic spine pain - association & relevance of bra fitting in post-menopausal women: a correlational study. Chiropr Man Therap 21(20):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  22. Neumann DA (2010) Kinesiology of the musculoskeletal system: foundations for rehabilitation. Mosby/Elsevier, St. Louis

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thompson JC (2002) Netter's concise atlas of orthopaedic anatomy. Icon Learning Systems, Medimedia

    Google Scholar 

  24. Milne JS, Lauder IJ (1974) Age effects in kyphosis and lordosis in adults. Ann Hum Biol 1:327–337

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ettinger B, Black DM, Palermo L, Nevitt MC, Melnikoff S, Cummings SR (1994) Kyphosis in older women and its relation to back pain, disability and osteopenia: the study of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 4:55–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Griffith JF (2015) Identifying osteoporotic vertebral fracture. Quant Imaging Med Surg 5(4):592–602. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4292.2015.08.01

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112:155–159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8(2):135–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029900800204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ludbrook J (1997) Comparing methods of measurements. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 24(2):193–203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ludbrook J (2010) Confidence in Altman-Bland plots: a critical review of the method of differences. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 37(2):143–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1681.2009.05288.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Alanay A, Pekmezci M, Karaeminogullari O, Acaroglu E, Yazici M, Cil A, Pijnenburg B, Genc Y, Oner FC (2007) Radiographic measurement of the sagittal plane deformity in patients with osteoporotic spinal fractures evaluation of intrinsic error. Eur Spine J 16(12):2126–2132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0474-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Kado DM, Huang MH, Karlamangla AS, Cawthon P, Katzman W, Hillier TA, Ensrud K, Cummings SR (2013) Factors associated with kyphosis progression in older women: 15 years experience in the study of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 28(1):179–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.1728

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Milne JS, Lauder IJ (1976) The relationship of kyphosis to the shape of vertebral bodies. Ann Hum Biol 3:173–179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by funding from an Australian Government Research Training Programme Scholarship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia

    L. Spencer, R. Fary, L. McKenna & K. Briffa

  2. Perth Radiological Clinic, Perth, WA, Australia

    R. Ho

Authors
  1. L. Spencer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Fary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. McKenna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. Briffa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Spencer.

Ethics declarations

All participants provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at Curtin University (RDHS-267-15).

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spencer, L., Fary, R., McKenna, L. et al. Thoracic kyphosis assessment in postmenopausal women: an examination of the Flexicurve method in comparison to radiological methods. Osteoporos Int 30, 2009–2018 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05023-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05023-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation