Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 551–558 | Cite as

New sagittal classification of AIS: validation by 3D characterization

  • Mareille Post
  • Stephane Verdun
  • Pierre Roussouly
  • Kariman Abelin-GenevoisEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction and aim

In order to improve surgical planning of sagittal correction in AIS, we proposed a new sagittal classification—Abelin-Genevois et al. Eur Spine J (27(9):2192–2202, 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5613-1). The main criticism is related to the fact that 2D lateral view results from the projection of the 3D deformity. The aim of this study is to show that the new sagittal classification system is a reliable system to describe the different sagittal scenarios that AIS could create both in 2D and 3D.

Methods

We performed retrospective radiograph analysis of prospectively collected data from 93 consecutive AIS patients who underwent an examination of the whole spine using the EOS® imaging system. 2D (Keops®) and 3D analyses (sterEOS®) provided frontal and sagittal spinal and spinopelvic parameters. In addition, 3D analysis provided apical vertebra rotation (AVR).

Results

Comparing 2D and 3D measurements for the general cohort, excellent correlation can be found for all parameters, but only fairly good for T10L2 and L1S1 angles. The highest variability was observed for T10L2, differences between 2D and 3D measurements being greater when the Cobb angle increased. AVR did not influence concordance between 2D and 3D measurements. Eighty-two percent were similarly classified in 2D and 3D according to the new classification. Misclassified patients were all AIS sagittal type 3 in 3D analysis, thoracolumbar junction (TLJ) lordosis being underestimated on 2D view.

Discussion

In conclusion, for the majority of cases (82%), 2D analysis may provide enough information for decision making when using a semi-automated 2D measurement system. However, in severe cases, especially when Cobb angle exceeds 55°, 3D analysis should be used to get a more accurate view on the thoracolumbar junction behavior.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis Classification 3D modeling Sagittal alignment sterEOS 

Notes

Authors contribution

This paper is the result of the Masters of Science project conducted by Mareille Post under the responsibility of Pr Barend Van Royen, MD, PhD and under the supervision of Dr Kariman Abelin-Genevois, MD, PhD. The authors acknowledge Pr Barend Van Royen, MD, PhD for his support and supervision of Mareille Post, MSc, in the achievement of her scientific work, as a collaboration between the research group of Orthopedic Department of the Centre Medico Chirurgical des Massues Croix Rouge Francaise and the Medical Science School of VU Amsterdam. KAG and MP designed and wrote the manuscript. KAG conceived the study and the cohort. KAG, PR and MP collected the patients' data. SV was in charge of the methodology of the study and analyzed the data, and as biostatician was entirely and independently in charge of the statistical analysis. KAG, MP and SV reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have conflict of interest, except Pierre Roussouly as shareholder of Keops(R), Smaio, France.

Supplementary material

586_2018_5819_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (145 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 144 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Roaf R (1958) Rotation movements of the spine with special reference to scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 40-B(2):312–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Somerville EW (1952) Rotational lordosis; the development of single curve. J Bone Joint Surg Br 34-B(3):421–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burton MS (2013) Diagnosis and treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Pediatr Ann 42(11):224–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Labelle H, Aubin C-E, 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–S45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rehm J, Germann T, Akbar M, Pepke W, Kauczor H-U, Weber M-A et al (2017) 3D-modeling of the spine using EOS imaging system: inter-reader reproducibility and reliability. PLoS ONE 12(2):e0171258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tambe AD, Panikkar SJ, Millner PA, Tsirikos AI (2018) Current concepts in the surgical management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Bone Jt J 100-B(4):415–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferrero E, Mazda K, Simon A-L, Ilharreborde B (2018) Preliminary experience with SpineEOS, a new software for 3D planning in AIS surgery. Eur Spine J 27(9):2165–2174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ponseti IV, Friedman B (1950) Prognosis in idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 32:381–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    King HA, Moe JH, Bradford DS, Winter RB (1983) The selection of fusion levels in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65(9):1302–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ovadia D (2013) Classification of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). J Child Orthop. 7(1):25–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J, Bridwell KH, Clements DH, Lowe TG et al (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(8):1169–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bridwell KH, Dewald RL (eds) (2011) The textbook of spinal surgery, vol 2, 3rd edn. Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Health, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Illés T, Tunyogi-Csapó M, Somoskeöy S (2011) Breakthrough in three-dimensional scoliosis diagnosis: significance of horizontal plane view and vertebra vectors. Eur Spine J 20(1):135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hong J-Y, Suh S-W, Easwar TR, Modi HN, Yang J-H, Park J-H (2011) Evaluation of the three-dimensional deformities in scoliosis surgery with computed tomography: efficacy and relationship with clinical outcomes. Spine 36(19):E1259–E1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Melhem E, Assi A, El Rachkidi R, Ghanem I (2016) EOS® biplanar X-ray imaging: concept, developments, benefits, and limitations. J Child Orthop 10(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kato S, Debaud C, Zeller RD (2017) Three-dimensional EOS analysis of apical vertebral rotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 37(8):e543–e547.  https://doi.org/10.1097/bpo.0000000000000776 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kadoury S, Labelle H (2012) Classification of three-dimensional thoracic deformities in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis from a multivariate analysis. Eur Spine J 21(1):40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thong W, Parent S, Wu J, Aubin C-E, Labelle H, Kadoury S (2016) Three-dimensional morphology study of surgical adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patient from encoded geometric models. Eur Spine J 25(10):3104–3113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abelin-Genevois K, Sassi D, Verdun S, Roussouly P (2018) Sagittal classification in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis : original description and therapeutic implications. Eur Spine J 27(9):2192–2202.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5613-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Abelin-Genevois K, Idjerouidene A, Roussouly P, Vital JM, Garin C (2014) Cervical spine alignment in the pediatric population: a radiographic normative study of 150 asymptomatic patients. Eur Spine J 23(7):1442–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Newton PO, Fujimori T, Doan J, Reighard FG, Bastrom TP, Misaghi A (2015) Defining the “Three-Dimensional Sagittal Plane” in Thoracic Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(20):1694–1701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ilharreborde B, Sebag G, Skalli W, Mazda K (2013) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with posteromedial translation: radiologic evaluation with a 3D low-dose system. Eur Spine J 22(11):2382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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):681–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Somoskeoy S, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Bogyo C, Illes T (2012) Accuracy and reliability of 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carreau JH, Bastrom T, Petcharaporn M, Schulte C, Marks M, Illés T et al (2014) Computer-generated, three-dimensional spine model from biplanar radiographs: a validity study in idiopathic scoliosis curves greater than 50 degrees. Spine Deform 2(2):81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pasha S, Cahill PJ, Dormans JP, Flynn JM (2016) Characterizing the differences between the 2D and 3D measurements of spine in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 25(10):3137–3145CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Spine SurgeryCentre Medico Chirurgical et de Réadaptation des Massues - Croix Rouge FrancaiseLyon Cedex 05France
  2. 2.VU Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Departement of Medical Research, Groupement des Hôpitaux de l’InstitutCatholique de Lille - Hôpital Saint PhilibertLomme CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations