European Spine Journal

, Volume 22, Issue 11, pp 2427–2432 | Cite as

Transverse plane 3D analysis of mild scoliosis

  • Aurélien Courvoisier
  • Xavier Drevelle
  • Jean Dubousset
  • Wafa Skalli
Original Article



To demonstrate the reality of a transverse plane pattern independent of the scoliotic curve location and to show the importance of the transverse plane pattern in the assessment of the progression risk in a population of mild scoliosis.


Spines of 111 patients with adolescent idiopathic mild scoliosis were reconstructed using biplanar stereoradiography. The apical axial rotation, the intervertebral axial rotation at junctions and the torsion index were computed. Mean values of each parameter were compared between thoracic, thoracolumbar and lumbar curves. Then a cluster analysis was performed using these parameters on 78 patients with effective outcomes at skeletal maturity. The effective outcomes and the results reached with the statistical analysis were compared and analyzed (ROC and logistic regression).


No statistical difference was observed when considering each parameter between the different types of curves. Two clusters independent of the curve type were identified. The mean values of transverse plane parameters were significantly higher in Cluster 1 than in Cluster 2. 91 % of patients classified in Cluster 1 had progressive curve and 73 % of patients classified in Cluster 2 remained stable at skeletal maturity. All parameters were good predictors but the best was the torsion index.


This study demonstrated that a transverse plane pattern combining apical axial rotation, the intervertebral axial rotation at junctions and the torsion index is independent of the scoliotic curve location and significant in the determination of the progression risk of mild scoliosis.


Scoliosis Progression risk Transverse plane 3D Biplanar stereoradiography 


Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Duval-Beaupere G (1996) Threshold values for supine and standing Cobb angles and rib hump measurements: prognostic factors for scoliosis. Eur Spine J 5:79–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duval-Beaupere G, Lamireau T (1985) Scoliosis at less than 30 degrees. Properties of the evolutivity (risk of progression). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 10:421–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perdriolle R, Vidal J (1981) A study of scoliotic curve. The importance of extension and vertebral rotation (author’s transl). Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 67:25–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vrtovec T, Pernus F, Likar B (2009) A review of methods for quantitative evaluation of axial vertebral rotation. Eur Spine J 18:1079–1090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vrtovec T, Pernus F, Likar B (2010) Determination of axial vertebral rotation in MR images: comparison of four manual and a computerized method. Eur Spine J 19:774–781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stokes IA, Sangole AP, Aubin CE (2009) Classification of scoliosis deformity three-dimensional spinal shape by cluster analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:584–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sangole AP, Aubin CE, Labelle H, Stokes IA, Lenke LG, Jackson R, Newton P (2009) Three-dimensional classification of thoracic scoliotic curves. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duong L, Cheriet F, Labelle H (2006) Three-dimensional classification of spinal deformities using fuzzy clustering. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:923–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Steib JP, Dumas R, Mitton D, Skalli W (2004) Surgical correction of scoliosis by in situ contouring: a detorsion analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kalifa G, Charpak Y, Maccia C, Fery-Lemonnier E, Bloch J, Boussard JM, Attal M, Dubousset J, Adamsbaum C (1998) Evaluation of a new low-dose digital x-ray device: first dosimetric and clinical results in children. Pediatr Radiol 28:557–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dubousset J, Charpak G, Dorion I, Skalli W, Lavaste F, Deguise J, Kalifa G, Ferey S (2005) A new 2D and 3D imaging approach to musculoskeletal physiology and pathology with low-dose radiation and the standing position: the EOS system. Bull Acad Natl Med 189:287–297; discussion 297–300Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dubousset J, Charpak G, Skalli W, Kalifa G, Lazennec JY (2007) EOS stereo-radiography system: whole-body simultaneous anteroposterior and lateral radiographs with very low radiation dose. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 93:141–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 31:681–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Humbert L, Carlioz H, Baudoin A, Skalli W, Mitton D (2008) 3D Evaluation of the acetabular coverage assessed by biplanar X-rays or single anteroposterior X-ray compared with CT-scan. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 11:257–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pomero V, Mitton D, Laporte S, de Guise JA, Skalli W (2004) Fast accurate stereoradiographic 3D-reconstruction of the spine using a combined geometric and statistic model. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 19:240–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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) 32:568–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacQueen J (1967) Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Proceedings of 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, vol 1, pp 281–297Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peterson LE, Nachemson AL (1995) Prediction of progression of the curve in girls who have adolescent idiopathic scoliosis of moderate severity. Logistic regression analysis based on data from The Brace Study of the Scoliosis Research Society. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:823–827PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duong L, Mac-Thiong JM, Cheriet F, Labelle H (2009) Three-dimensional subclassification of Lenke type 1 scoliotic curves. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:135–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aurélien Courvoisier
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xavier Drevelle
    • 1
  • Jean Dubousset
    • 1
  • Wafa Skalli
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de biomécaniqueArts et Métiers ParisTechParisFrance
  2. 2.Grenoble University HospitalUniversité Joseph FourierGrenoble Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations