Abstract
Study Design
Survey-based cross-sectional study.
Objectives
To describe interobserver agreement among experienced spine surgeons in choosing neutral vertebra (NV) based on manual measurements from radiographs. Secondarily, to use axial vertebral rotation (AVR) values obtained from low-dose stereoradiography (SR) post-processing software (SterEOS 2D/3D) to separately designate the NV in subject cases and to compare manually derived and software-derived NV designations.
Summary of Background Data
Investigators have previously suggested that parameters such as Lenke classification, stable vertebra level, end vertebra level, and NV level be used to decide on fusion levels in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Studies have revealed suboptimal interobserver reliability in these vertebral designations. SR post-processing software may represent a useful tool for standardizing NV designation.
Methods
Thirty-two subjects with idiopathic scoliosis and Lenke 1–4 curves were assessed. Experienced surgeons (range of 7–35 years in practice) assigned NV based on preoperative radiographs. Interobserver reliability was quantified using the Fleiss Kappa statistic. Surgeon responses were compared with NV designations made using AVR values provided by SR postprocessing software. Agreement between these values was quantified using percentage agreement.
Results
Surgeons exhibited moderate agreement in choosing NV based on radiographs (Kappa 0.444). Surgeon responses agreed with the SR-derived NV in 26.9% of cases, lay within 1 level in 82.1% of cases, and lay within 2 levels in 97.5% of cases. Surgeons were more likely to choose distal to the SR NV rather than proximal.
Conclusions
Variability in instrumented level selection and outcomes in idiopathic scoliosis may be partially related to inconsistency in selection of the NV. The use of SR post-processing software may provide a more reliable method for choosing NV.
Level of Evidence
Level II.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
30 December 2019
The author would like to update the order of author names as follows
References
Opportunities to increase efficiency in health care, statement at the Health Reform Summit of the Committee on Finance, United States Senate [press release]. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office; 2008.
Aubin CE, Labelle H, Ciolofan OC. Variability of spinal instrumentation configurations in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2007;16:57–64.
Newton PO, Faro FD, Lenke LG, et al. Factors involved in the decision to perform a selective versus nonselective fusion of Lenke IB and 1C (King-Moe II) curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:S217–23.
Robitaille M, Aubin CE, Labelle H. Intra and interobserver variability of preoperative planning for surgical instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2007;16:1604–14.
Glotzbecker MP, Vitale MG, Shea KG, Flynn JM. Posna Committee on the Quality SVI. Surgeon practices regarding infection prevention for pediatric spinal surgery. J Pediatr Orthop 2013;33:694–9.
Lonner BS, Toombs CS, Paul JC, et al. Resource utilization in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: Is there opportunity for standardization? Spine Deform 2017;5:166–71.
Williams BA, Asghar J, Matsumoto H, et al. More experienced surgeons less likely to fuse: a focus group review of 315 hypothetical EOS cases. J Pediatr Orthop 2013;33:68–74.
Phan P, Ploumis A, Hess K, Wood KB. Evaluating the extent of clinical variability among treatment options for patients with adult spinal deformity. Clin Spine Surg 2017;30:E864–70.
Lenke LG. Lenke classification system of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: treatment recommendations. Instr Course Lect 2005;54:537–42.
Knapp DR, Price CT, Jones ET, Coonrad RW, Flynn JC. Choosing fusion levels in progressive thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1992;17:1159–65.
Trobisch PD, Ducoffe AR, Lonner BS, Errico TJ. Choosing fusion levels in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2013;21:519–28.
Majd ME, Holt RT, Castro FP. Selection of fusion levels in scoliosis surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:71–82.
Hosseinpour-Feizi H, Soleimanpour J, Sales JG, Arzroumchilar A. Lenke and King classification systems for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: interobserver agreement and postoperative results. Int J Gen Med 2011;4:821–5.
Ogon M, Giesinger K, Behensky H, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of Lenke’s new scoliosis classification system. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:858–62.
Qiu G, Li Q, Wang Y, et al. Comparison of reliability between the PUMC and Lenke classification systems for classifying adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:E836–42.
Potter BK, Rosner MK, Lehman RA, et al. Reliability of end, neutral, and stable vertebrae identification in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:1658–63.
Erken HY, Burc H, Saka G, Aydogan M. Disagreements in surgical planning still exist between spinal surgeons in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a multisurgeon assessment. Eur Spine J 2014;23:1258–62.
Suk SI, Lee SM, Chung ER, et al. Determination of distal fusion level with segmental pedicle screw fixation in single thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:484–91.
Dang NR, Moreau MJ, Hill DL, et al. Intra-observer reproducibility and interobserver reliability of the radiographic parameters in the Spinal Deformity Study Group’s AIS Radiographic Measurement Manual. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:1064–9.
Al-Aubaidi Z, Lebel D, Oudjhane K, Zeller R. Three-dimensional imaging of the spine using the EOS system: is it reliable? A comparative study using computed tomography imaging. J Pediatr Orthop B 2013;22:409–12.
Glaser DA, Doan J, Newton PO. Comparison of 3-dimensional spinal reconstruction accuracy: biplanar radiographs with EOS versus computed tomography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:1391–7.
Somoskeoy S, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Bogyo C,IIlesT Clinical validation of coronal and sagittal spinal curve measurements based on three-dimensional vertebra vector parameters. Spine J 2012;12:960–8.
Somoskeoy S, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Bogyo C, IIles T. 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 2012;12:1052–9.
Thelen T, Thelen P, Demezon H, et al. Normative 3D acetabular orientation measurements by the low-dose EOS imaging system in 102 asymptomatic subjects in standing position: analyses by side, gender, pelvic incidence and reproducibility. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2017;103:209–15.
Pasha S, Cahill PJ, Dormans JP, Flynn JM. Characterizing the differences between the 2D and 3D measurements of spine in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2016;25:3137–45.
Rehm J, Germann T, Akbar M, et al. 3D-modeling of the spine using EOS imaging system: Inter-reader reproducibility and reliability. PLoS One 2017;12:e0171258.
Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med 1998;17:101–10.
Majdouline Y, Aubin CE, Robitaille M, et al. Scoliosis correction objectives in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 2007;27:775–81.
D’Andrea LP, Betz RR, Lenke LG, et al. Do radiographic parameters correlate with clinical outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:1795–802.
Zhang J, Lou E, Shi X, et al. A computer-aided Cobb angle measurement method and its reliability. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010;23:383–7.
Gupta M, Henry JK, Schwab F, et al. Dedicated spine measurement software quantifies key spino-pelvic parameters more reliably than traditional picture archiving and communication systems tools. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41:E22–7.
Zhang J, Li H, Lv L, et al. Computer-aided King classification of scoliosis. Technol Health Care 2015;23(Suppl 2):S411–7.
Stokes IA, Aronsson DD. Computer-assisted algorithms improve reliability of King classification and Cobb angle measurement of scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:665–70.
Nault ML, Labelle H, Aubin CE, et al. Fuzzy-logic-assisted surgical planning in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009;22:263–9.
Akbar M, Terran J, Ames CP, et al. Use of Surgimap Spine in sagittal plane analysis, osteotomy planning, and correction calculation. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2013;24:163–72.
Newton PO, Khandwala Y, Bartley CE, et al. New EOS imaging protocol allows a substantial reduction in radiation exposure for scoliosis patients. Spine Deform 2016;4:138–44.
Tabard-Fougère A, Bonnefoy-Mazure A, Hanquinet S, et al. Validity and reliability of spine rasterstereography in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:98–105.
Ilharreborde B, Ferrero E, Alison M, Mazda K. EOS microdose protocol for the radiological follow-up of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2016;25:526–31.
Morel B, Moueddeb S, Blondiaux E, et al. Dose, image quality and spine modeling assessment of biplanar EOS micro-dose radiographs for the follow-up of in-brace adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. Eur Spine J 2018 [Epub ahead of print].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
IRB approval: This study was reviewed and approved by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Institutional Review Board.
Author disclosures: CJD (none), SP (none), DJM (none), RRB (personal fees and nonfinancial support from Abyrx; nonfinancial support from Advanced Vertebral Solutions; personal fees and nonfinancial support from ApiFix; grants and personal fees from DePuy Synthes Spine; personal fees from Electrocore and Globus Medical; nonfinancial support from Medovex, Medtronic, MiMedx, and Orthobond; personal fees and nonfinancial support from Spineguard, outside the submitted work), DHC (personal fees from Synthes and NuVasive; grants and personal fees from DePuy, outside the submitted work), NDF (personal fees from Zimmer, Medtronic, and Medtronic Sofamor Danek, outside the submitted work), MGG (personal fees from Biomet and DePuy, outside the submitted work), SWH (personal fees from Zimmer, outside the submitted work), MPK (none), RAL (personal fees from DePuy, Medtronic, and Stryker, outside the submitted work), BSL (grants and personal fees from DePuy; personal fees from Apifix, Ethicon, and K2M; nonfinancial support from Paradigm Spine and Spine Search; personal fees from Zimmer, outside the submitted work), PON (grants from EOS Imaging; nonfinancial support from Electrocore; grants and personal fees from DePuy Synthes Spine and K2M; grants from MAZOR, Orthopediatrics, and Zimmer, outside the submitted work), BDR (grants from SRS, OMeGA, and POSNA, outside the submitted work), PDS (grants and personal fees from DePuy, personal fees from Globus Medical, outside the submitted work), VSU (personal fees from DePuy and Orthopediatrics, outside the submitted work), PJC (personal fees from Biogen, Inc, outside the submitted work), The Harms Study Group (none).
IRB Approval: The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Institutional Review Board exempted this study from oversight.
The authors received no funding for this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
De Francesco, C.J., Pasha, S., Miller, D.J. et al. Agreement Between Manual and Computerized Designation of Neutral Vertebra in Idiopathic Scoliosis. Spine Deform 6, 644–650 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.03.001
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.03.001