Is there any use? Validity of 4D rasterstereography compared to EOS 3D X-ray imaging in patients with degenerative disk disease

Abstract

Introduction

Previous studies of 4D rasterstereography show a high intra- and interday reliability. However, only few studies validate rasterstereography to conventional X-ray imaging. We utilized EOS X-ray imaging system (EOS Imaging, Paris, France) for accurate 3D spinal modeling and compared the results to parameters obtained by 4D rasterstereography. The aim of the present study was to validate 4D rasterstereography in patients with degenerative disk disease (DDD).

Materials and method

Thirty-four individuals with DDD (female = 22 and male = 12) were included. EOS X-ray images were analyzed to determine spinal [lumbar lordosis (LL) and thoracic kyphosis (TK)] and pelvic parameters [pelvic obliquity (PO) and pelvic axial rotation (PR)]. Patients received 4D rasterstereographic measurements on the same day as EOS imaging. Parameters obtained by rasterstereography were compared to those obtained by EOS X-ray imaging. We used Bland and Altman’s test as well as Pearson test to validate rasterstereography. Additionally, we calculated interrater reliability of EOS X-ray analysis using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

Our data showed only weak correlation between 4D rasterstereography and EOS X-ray imaging for spinal parameters (LL and TK). Pelvic parameters (PO and PR) showed no correlation. Interrater correlation reliability for EOS analysis was excellent (ICC > 0.8).

Conclusion

Our data suggest that rasterstereographic systems are no reliable substitute for X-ray-based imaging systems in patients with degenerative disk disease. EOS imaging was shown to provide reliable and accurate spinal modeling. Based on our results, rasterstereographic imaging should be used with caution for evaluating spinal and pelvic parameters in patients with DDD.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Nash CLJ, Gregg EC, Brown RH, Pillai K (1979) Risks of exposure to X-rays in patients undergoing long-term treatment for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61:371–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Simpson AK, Whang PG, Jonisch A, Haims A, Grauer JN (2008) The radiation exposure associated with cervical and lumbar spine radiographs. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:409–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Drerup B, Hierholzer E (1987) Automatic localization of anatomical landmarks on the back surface and construction of a body-fixed coordinate system. J Biomech. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(87)90325-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Drerup B, Hierholzer E (1994) Back shape measurement using video rasterstereography and three-dimensional reconstruction of spinal shape. Clin Biomech 9:28–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Hackenberg L, Hierholzer E, Liljenqvist U (2002) Accuracy of rasterstereography versus radiography in idiopathic scoliosis after anterior correction and fusion. Stud Health Technol Inform 91:241–245

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Schulte TL, Hierholzer E, Boerke A, Lerner T, Liljenqvist U, Bullmann V, Hackenberg L (2008) Raster stereography versus radiography in the long-term follow-up of idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Spine Surg 21:23–28

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Schülein S, Mendoza S, Malzkorn R, Harms J, Skwara A (2012) Rasterstereographic evaluation of inter- and intraobserver-reliability in postsurgical adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:13–16

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Tabard-Fougère A, Bonnefoy-Mazure A, Hanquinet S, Lascombes P, Armand S, Dayer R (2017) Validity and reliability of spine rasterstereography in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:98–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hackenberg L, Hierholzer E, Pötzl W, Götze C, Liljenqvist U (2003) Rasterstereographic back shape analysis in idiopathic scoliosis after anterior correction and fusion. Clin Biomech 18:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Padulo J, Ardigò LP (2014) Formetric 4D rasterstereography. Biomed Res Int 2014:3–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Albertsen IM, Brockmann B, Hollander K, Schröder J, Zech A, Sehner S, Stücker R, Babin K (2018) Spinal posture changes using dynamic rasterstereography during the modified Matthiass test discriminate between postural weak and strong healthy children (10–14 years): a pilot study. Eur J Pediatr 177(9):1327–1334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Scheidt S, Endress S, Gesicki M, Hofmann UK (2018) Using video rasterstereography and treadmill gait analysis as a tool for evaluating postoperative outcome after lumbar spinal fusion. Gait Posture 64:18–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dietrich TJ, Pfirrmann CWA, Schwab A, Pankalla K, Buck FM (2013) Comparison of radiation dose, workflow, patient comfort and financial break-even of standard digital radiography and a novel biplanar low-dose X-ray system for upright full-length lower limb and whole spine radiography. Skeletal Radiol 42(7):959–967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Deschênes S, Charron G, Beaudoin G, Labelle H, Dubois J, Miron M-C, Parent S (2010) Diagnostic imaging of spinal deformities: reducing patients radiation dose with a new slot-scanning X-ray imager. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:989–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Bassani T, Stucovitz E, Galbusera F, Brayda M (2019) Is rasterstereography a valid noninvasive method for the screening of juvenile and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-05876-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    National Institutes of Health (1998) Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults—the evidence report. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Morgan CJ, Aban I (2015) Methods for evaluating the agreement between diagnostic tests. J Nucl Cardiol 23:511–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Guidetti L, Bonavolont V, Tito A, Reis VM, Gallotta MC, Baldari C (2013) Intra- and interday reliability of spine rasterstereography. Biomed Res Int 2013:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Schröder J (2016) Non-invasive scoliosis-screening—a validity study for early diagnosis by means of raster stereography. Nicht-invasives skoliose-screening. OUP. https://doi.org/10.3238/oup.2015.0588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Mitulescu A, Semaan I, De Guise JA et al (2001) Validation of the non-stereo corresponding points stereoradiographic 3D reconstruction technique. Med Biol Eng Comput 39:152–158

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Illés T, Somoskeöy S (2012) The EOS™ imaging system and its uses in daily orthopaedic practice. Int Orthop 36:1325–1331

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Lorenz Sedlmayr at the Schoen Klinik Ruecken Institut (SKRI) for operating 4D rasterstereography and for helpful technical inputs.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Wanke-Jellinek.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 762 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wanke-Jellinek, L., Heese, O., Krenauer, A. et al. Is there any use? Validity of 4D rasterstereography compared to EOS 3D X-ray imaging in patients with degenerative disk disease. Eur Spine J 28, 2162–2168 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06082-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • EOS X-ray
  • Rasterstereography
  • Degenerative disk disease
  • DDD
  • Sagittal balance