Considerations in sagittal evaluation of the scoliotic spine
- 7 Downloads
To predict the sagittal spinal parameters as measured in a 3D model of the spine using the 2D radiographic measurements.
Bi-planar low-dose stereoradiography images of 73 right thoracic AIS patients were processed to generate 3D models of the spine and pelvis. T1–T12 kyphosis, L1–S1 lordosis, and pelvic rotation were calculated using these 3D models. With the same X-rays, T1–T12 kyphosis, L1–S1 lordosis, thoracic and lumbar frontal curves, and pelvic rotation (calculated from the frontal and sagittal distances between the femoral heads) were manually measured on the X-rays by two independent observers. 3D sagittal parameters were predicted from only 2D sagittal parameters (simple regression) and from 2D sagittal parameters, 2D frontal parameters, and pelvic rotation (multiple regression). The simple and multiple regression models were compared for efficiency and accuracy of prediction.
Comparing single and multiple regression models, multiple regression improved the prediction of the 3D sagittal parameters for kyphosis (R2 = 0.78–0.86) and lordosis (R2 = 0.88–0.92) measurements when compared to simple regression. The impact of pelvic rotation was significant when 2D kyphosis was higher than 40° and thoracic curve was less than 60° or 2D kyphosis was less than 40° and thoracic curve was higher than 60°, p < 0.05. Lordosis of 60° and higher were more prone to measurement error when pelvic rotation was present, p < 0.05.
Both pelvic rotation and frontal deformity affect the accuracy of the 2D sagittal measurements of the scoliotic spine. We suggest the importance of the 3D considerations in sagittal evaluation of AIS.
KeywordsAdolescent idiopathic scoliosis Sagittal alignment 3D reconstruction Low-dose stereoradiography Predictive models
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Pasha S, Flynn JM, Sponseller PD, Orlando G, Newton PO, Cahill PJ, Harms Study Group (2017) Timing of changes in three-dimensional spinal parameters after selective thoracic fusion in Lenke 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: two-year follow-up. Spine Deform 5(6):409–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2017.04.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Nault ML, Mac-Thiong JM, Roy-Beaudry M, Turgeon I, Deguise J, Labelle H, Parent S (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. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
- 17.Ilharreborde B, Steffen JS, Nectoux E, Vital JM, Mazda K, Skalli W, Obeid I (2011) Angle measurement reproducibility using EOS three-dimensional reconstructions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by posterior instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(20):E1306–E1313. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3182293548 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Gangnet N, Dumas R, Pomero V, Mitulescu A, Skalli W, Vital JM (2006) Three-dimensional spinal and pelvic alignment in an asymptomatic population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(15):E507–E512. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000224533.19359.89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Eijgenraam SM, Boselie TF, Sieben JM, Bastiaenen CH, Willems PC, Arts JJ, Lataster A (2017) Development and assessment of a digital X-ray software tool to determine vertebral rotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine J 17(2):260–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.09.039 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Sullivan TB, Bastrom T, Reighard F, Jeffords M, Newton PO (2017) A novel method for estimating three-dimensional apical vertebral rotation using two-dimensional coronal cobb angle and thoracic kyphosis. Spine Deform 5(4):244–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2017.01.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Faria R, McKenna C, Wade R, Yang H, Woolacott N, Sculpher M (2013) The EOS 2D/3D X-ray imaging system: a cost-effectiveness analysis quantifying the health benefits from reduced radiation exposure. Eur J Radiol 82(8):e342–e349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.02.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Dietrich TJ, Pfirrmann CW, 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-013-1600-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar