Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characterizing the differences between the 2D and 3D measurements of spine in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Although adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is known to impact the 3D orientation of the spine and pelvis, the impact of the vertebral position relative to the X-ray scanner on the agreement between 2D and 3D measurements of a curve has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to investigate the agreement between 2D and 3D measurements of the scoliotic curve as a function of the 3D spinal parameters in AIS.

Methods

Three independent observers measured the thoracic and lumbar Cobb angles, Kyphosis, and lordosis on the posterior–anterior and lateral X-rays of AIS patients. The 3D reconstructions were created from bi-planar X-rays and the 3D spinal parameters were calculated in both radio and patient planes using SterEOS software. The degree of agreement between the 2D and 3D measurements was tested and its relationship with the curve axial rotation was determined.

Results

2D and 3D measurements of the sagittal plane spinal parameters were significantly different (p < 0.05). The differences between the 2D and 3D measurements were related to the apical vertebrae rotation, the orientation of the plane of maximum curvature, pelvic axial rotation, and the curve magnitude. Differences between the radio plane and patient plane measurements were related to the pelvic axial rotation, Cobb angles, and apical vertebrae rotation, p < 0.05.

Conclusion

Clinically and statistically significant differences were observed between the 2D and 3D measurements of the scoliotic spine. The differences between the 2D and 3D techniques were significant in sagittal plane and were related to the spinal curve and pelvic rotation in transverse plane.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dansereau J, Beauchamp A, Guise JD, Labelle H (1990) Three dimensional reconstruction of the spine and the rib cage from stereoradiographic and imaging techniques. 16th Conf Can SocMech Eng 2:61–64

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cheriet F, Meunier J (1999) Self-calibration of a biplane X-ray imaging system for an optimal three dimensional reconstruction. Comput Med Imaging Graph 23(3):133–141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kadoury S, Cheriet F, Laporte C, Labelle H (2007) A versatile 3D reconstruction system of the spine and pelvis for clinical assessment of spinal deformities. Med Biol Eng Comput 45(6):591–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kadoury S, Labelle H, Parent S (2014) 3D spine reconstruction of postoperative patients from multi-level manifold ensembles. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 17(Pt 3):361–368

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nault ML, Mac-Thiong JM, Roy-Beaudry M et al (2014) Three-dimensional spinal morphology can differentiate between progressive and nonprogressive patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis at the initial presentation: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(10):E601–E606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Labelle H, Aubin CE, Jackson R, Lenke L, Newton P, Parent S (2011) Seeing the spine in 3D: how will it change what we do? J Pediatr Orthop 31(1 Suppl):S37–S45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kadoury S, Labelle H (2012) Classification of three-dimensional thoracic deformities in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis from a multivariate analysis. Eur Spine J 21(1):40–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sangole AP, Aubin CE, Labelle H et al (2009) Three-dimensional classification of thoracic scoliotic curves. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(1):91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J et al (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(8):1169–1181

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lark RK, Yaszay B, Bastrom TP, Newton PO, Harms Study G (2013) Adding thoracic fusion levels in Lenke 5 curves: risks and benefits. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(2):195–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cho RH, Yaszay B, Bartley CE, Bastrom TP, Newton PO (2012) Which Lenke 1A curves are at the greatest risk for adding-on and why? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(16):1384–1390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Humbert L, De Guise JA, Aubert B, Godbout B, Skalli W (2009) 3D reconstruction of the spine from biplanar X-rays using parametric models based on transversal and longitudinal inferences. Med Eng Phys 31(6):681–687

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gille O, Champain N, Benchikh-El-Fegoun A, Vital JM, Skalli W (2007) Reliability of 3D reconstruction of the spine of mild scoliotic patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(5):568–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Al-Aubaidi Z, Lebel D, Oudjhane K, Zeller R (2013) Three-dimensional imaging of the spine using the EOS system: is it reliable? A comparative study using computed tomography imaging. J Pediatr Orthop B 22(5):409–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Glaser DA, Doan J, Newton PO (2012) Comparison of 3-dimensional spinal reconstruction accuracy: biplanar radiographs with EOS versus computed tomography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(16):1391–1397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ilharreborde B, Steffen JS, Nectoux E et al (2011) Angle measurement reproducibility using EOS three-dimensional reconstructions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by posterior instrumentation. Spin (Phila Pa 1976)e 36(20):E1306–E1313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Illes T, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Somoskeoy S (2011) Breakthrough in three-dimensional scoliosis diagnosis: significance of horizontal plane view and vertebra vectors. Eur Spine J 20(1):135–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Somoskeoy S, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Bogyo C, Illes T (2012) Clinical validation of coronal and sagittal spinal curve measurements based on three-dimensional vertebra vector parameters. Spine J 12(10):960–968

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Illes T, Somoskeoy S (2013) Comparison of scoliosis measurements based on three-dimensional vertebra vectors and conventional two-dimensional measurements: advantages in evaluation of prognosis and surgical results. Eur Spine J 22(6):1255–1263

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Somoskeoy S, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Bogyo C, Illes T (2012) Accuracy and reliability of coronal and sagittal spinal curvature data based on patient-specific three-dimensional models created by the EOS 2D/3D imaging system. Spine J 12(11):1052–1059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stokes IA (1994) Three-dimensional terminology of spinal deformity. A report presented to the Scoliosis Research Society by the Scoliosis Research Society Working Group on 3-D terminology of spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19(2):236–248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Morrison DG, Chan A, Hill D, Parent EC, Lou EH (2015) Correlation between Cobb angle, spinous process angle (SPA) and apical vertebrae rotation (AVR) on posteroanterior radiographs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Eur Spine J 24(2):306–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schmid SL, Buck FM, Boni T, Farshad M (2015) Radiographic measurement error of the scoliotic curve angle depending on positioning of the patient and the side of scoliotic curve. Eur Spine J 25(2):379–384. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4259-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Villemure I, Aubin CE, Grimard G, Dansereau J, Labelle H (2001) Progression of vertebral and spinal three-dimensional deformities in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a longitudinal study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(20):2244–2250

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 2nd Floor, Wood Center, 34th Street and Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-4399, USA

    Saba Pasha, Patrick J. Cahill & John M. Flynn

  2. Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgery, Texas Children’s Hospital, 6621 Fannin Street, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    John P. Dormans

Authors
  1. Saba Pasha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick J. Cahill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John P. Dormans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John M. Flynn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saba Pasha.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pasha, S., Cahill, P.J., Dormans, J.P. et al. Characterizing the differences between the 2D and 3D measurements of spine in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 25, 3137–3145 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4582-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4582-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation