nach oben

European Spine Journal

Erschienen in:

01.05.2009 | Review Article

A review of methods for quantitative evaluation of spinal curvature

verfasst von: Tomaž Vrtovec, Franjo Pernuš, Boštjan Likar

Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Ausgabe 5/2009

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to provide a complete overview of the existing methods for quantitative evaluation of spinal curvature from medical images, and to summarize the relevant publications, which may not only assist in the introduction of other researchers to the field, but also be a valuable resource for studying the existing methods or developing new methods and evaluation strategies. Key evaluation issues and future considerations, supported by the results of the overview, are also discussed.

Adam C, Izatt M, Harvey J, Askin G (2005) Variability in Cobb angle measurements using reformatted computerized tomography scans. Spine 30:1664–1669. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000169449.68870.f8 PubMedCrossRef

Alanay A, Pekmezci M, Karaeminogullari O, Acaroglu E, Yazici M, Cil A, Pijnenburg B, Genc Y, Oner F (2007) Radiographic measurement of the sagittal plane deformity in patients with osteoporotic spinal fractures evaluation of intrinsic error. Eur Spine J 16:2126–2132. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0474-z PubMedCrossRef

Allen S, Parent E, Khorasani M, Hill D, Lou E, Raso J (2008) Validity and reliability of active shape models for the estimation of Cobb angle in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Digit Imaging 21:208–218. doi:10.1007/s10278-007-9026-7 PubMedCrossRef

André B, Dansereau J, Labelle H (1992) Effect of radiographic landmark identification errors on the accuracy of three-dimensional reconstruction of the human spine. Med Biol Eng Comput 30:569–575. doi:10.1007/BF02446787 PubMedCrossRef

André B, Dansereau J, Labelle H (1994) Optimized vertical stereo base radiographic setup for the clinical three-dimensional reconstruction of the human spine. J Biomech 27:1023–1035. doi:10.1016/0021-9290(94)90219-4 PubMedCrossRef

Aubin C, Dansereau J, Parent F, Labelle H, de Guise J (1997) Morphometric evaluations of personalised 3D reconstructions and geometric models of the human spine. Med Biol Eng Comput 35:611–618. doi:10.1007/BF02510968 PubMedCrossRef

Beauchamp M, Labelle H, Grimard G, Stanciu C, Poitras B, Dansereau J (1993) Diurnal variation of Cobb angle measurement in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 18:1581–1583. doi:10.1097/00007632-199309000-00002 PubMedCrossRef

Beekman C, Hall V (1979) Variability of scoliosis measurement from spinal roentgenograms. Phys Ther 59:764–765PubMed

Bernhardt M, Bridwell K (1989) Segmental analysis of the sagittal plane alignment of the normal thoracic and lumbar spines and thoracolumbar junction. Spine 14:717–721. doi:10.1097/00007632-198907000-00012 PubMedCrossRef

10.

Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2007) Analysis of structural features of deformed spines in frontal and sagittal projections. Comput Med Imaging Graph 31:9–16. doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2006.09.016 PubMedCrossRef

11.

Briggs A, Wrigley T, Tully E, Adams P, Greig A, Bennell K (2007) Radiographic measures of thoracic kyphosis in osteoporosis: Cobb and vertebral centroid angles. Skeletal Radiol 36:761–767. doi:10.1007/s00256-007-0284-8 PubMedCrossRef

12.

Brown R, Burstein A, Nash C, Schock C (1976) Spinal analysis using a three-dimensional radiographic technique. J Biomech 9:355–365. doi:10.1016/0021-9290(76)90113-5 PubMedCrossRef

13.

Carman D, Browne R, Birch J (1990) Measurement of scoliosis and kyphosis radiographs: intraobserver and interobserver variation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:328–333PubMed

14.

Chen YL (1999) Vertebral centroid measurement of lumbar lordosis compared with the Cobb technique. Spine 24:1786–1790. doi:10.1097/00007632-199909010-00007 PubMedCrossRef

15.

Chen YL, Chen WJ, Chiou WK (2007) An alternative method for measuring scoliosis curvature. Orthopedics 30:828–831PubMed

16.

Chernukha K, Daffner R, Reigel D (1998) Lumbar lordosis measurement: a new method versus Cobb technique. Spine 23:74–79. doi:10.1097/00007632-199801010-00016 PubMedCrossRef

17.

Cheung J, Wever D, Veldhuizen A, Klein J, Verdonck B, Nijlunsing R, Cool J, Van Horn J (2002) The reliability of quantitative analysis on digital images of the scoliotic spine. Eur Spine J 11:535–542. doi:10.1007/s00586-001-0381-7 PubMedCrossRef

18.

Chockalingam N, Dangerfield P, Giakas G, Cochrane T, Dorgan J (2002) Computer-assisted Cobb measurement of scoliosis. Eur Spine J 11:353–357. doi:10.1007/s00586-002-0386-x PubMedCrossRef

19.

Cobb J (1948) Outline for the study of scoliosis. Am Acad Orthop Surg Instr Course Lect 5:261–275

20.

Côté P, Cassidy J, Yong-Hing K, Sibley J, Loewy J (1997) Apophysial joint degeneration, disc degeneration, and sagittal curve of the cervical spine: can they be measured reliably on radiographs? Spine 22:859–864. doi:10.1097/00007632-199704150-00007 PubMedCrossRef

21.

De Carvalho A, Vialle R, Thomsen L, Amzallag J, Cluzel G, Pointe H, Mary P (2007) Reliability analysis for manual measurement of coronal plane deformity in adolescent scoliosis. Are 30 × 90 cm plain films better than digitized small films? Eur Spine J 16:1615–1620. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0437-4

22.

De Smet A, Goin J, Asher M, Scheuch H (1982) A clinical study of the differences between the scoliotic angles measured on posteroanterior and anteroposterior radiographs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64:489–493

23.

De Smet A, Tarlton M, Cook L, Fritz S, Dwyer S (1980) A radiographic method for three-dimensional analysis of spinal configuration. Radiology 137:343–348PubMed

24.

Diab K, Sevastik J, Hedlund R, Suliman I (1995) Accuracy and applicability of measurement of the scoliotic angle at the frontal plane by Cobb’s method, by Ferguson’s method and by a new method. Eur Spine J 4:291–295. doi:10.1007/BF00301037 PubMedCrossRef

25.

Dimar JII, Carreon L, Labelle H, Djurasovic M, Weidenbaum M, Brown C, Roussouly P (2008) Intra- and inter-observer reliability of determining radiographic sagittal parameters of the spine and pelvis using a manual and a computer-assisted methods. Eur Spine J 17:1373–1379. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0755-1 PubMedCrossRef

26.

Drerup B, Hierholzer E (1992) Evaluation of frontal radiographs of scoliotic spines—part I: measurement of position and orientation of vertebrae and assessment of clinical shape parameters. J Biomech 25:1357–1362. doi:10.1016/0021-9290(92)90291-8 PubMedCrossRef

27.

Drerup B, Hierholzer E (1996) Assessment of scoliotic deformity from back shape asymmetry using an improved mathematical model. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 11:376–383. doi:10.1016/0268-0033(96)00025-3

28.

Dumas R, Blanchard B, Carlier R, de Loubresse C, Le Huec JC, Marty C, Moinard M, Vital JM (2008) A semiautomated method using interpolation and optimisation for the 3D reconstruction of the spine from bi-planar radiography: a precision and accuracy study. Med Biol Eng Comput 46:85–92. doi:10.1007/s11517-007-0253-3 PubMedCrossRef

29.

Dutton K, Jones T, Slinger B, Scull E, O’Connor J (1989) Reliability of the Cobb angle index derived by traditional and computer assisted methods. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 12:16–23PubMed

30.

Facanha-Filho F, Winter R, Lonstein J, Koop S, Novacheck T, L’Heureux E, Noren C (2001) Measurement accuracy in congenital scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:42–45PubMed

31.

Ferguson A (1930) The study and treatment of scoliosis. South Med J 23:116–120

32.

Fon G, Pitt M, Thies A (1980) Thoracic kyphosis: range in normal subjects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 134:979–983PubMed

33.

Goh S, Price R, Leedman P, Singer K (2000) A comparison of three methods for measuring thoracic kyphosis: implications for clinical studies. Rheumatology 39:310–315. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/39.3.310 PubMedCrossRef

34.

Goldberg M, Poitras B, Mayo N, Labelle H, Bourassa R, Cloutier R (1988) Observer variation in assessing spinal curvature and skeletal development in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 13:1371–1377. doi:10.1097/00007632-198812000-00008 PubMedCrossRef

35.

Gore D, Sepic S, Gardner G (1986) Roentgenographic findings of the cervical spine in asymptomatic people. Spine 11:521–524. doi:10.1097/00007632-198607000-00003 PubMedCrossRef

36.

Greenspan A, Pugh J, Norman A, Norman R (1978) Scoliotic index: a comparative evaluation of methods for the measurement of scoliosis. B Hosp Jt Dis Ort 39:117–125

37.

Gross C, Gross M, Kuschner S (1983) Error analysis of scoliosis curvature measurement. B Hosp Jt Dis Ort 43:171–177

38.

Gstoettner M, Sekyra K, Walochnik N, Winter P, Wachter R, Bach C (2007) Inter- and intra-observer reliability assessment of the Cobb angle: manual versus digital measurement tools. Eur Spine J 16:1587–1592. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0401-3 PubMedCrossRef

39.

Hardacker J, Shuford R, Capicotto P, Pryor P (1997) Radiographic standing cervical segmental alignment in adult volunteers without neck symptoms. Spine 22:1472–1480. doi:10.1097/00007632-199707010-00009 PubMedCrossRef

40.

Harrison DE, Cailliet R, Harrison DD, Janik T, Holland B (2001) Reliability of centroid, Cobb, and Harrison posterior tangent methods: which to choose for analysis of thoracic kyphosis. Spine 26:E227–E234. doi:10.1097/00007632-200106010-00002 PubMedCrossRef

41.

Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Janik T, Troyanovich S, Harrison DE, Holland B (1998) Elliptical modeling of the sagittal lumbar lordosis and segmental rotation angles as a method to discriminate between normal and low back pain subjects. J Spinal Disord 11:430–439. doi:10.1097/00002517-199810000-00010 PubMedCrossRef

42.

Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Janik T, Holland B (2001) Radiographic analysis of lumbar lordosis: centroid, Cobb, TRALL, and Harrison posterior tangent methods. Spine 26:E235–E242. doi:10.1097/00007632-200106010-00003 PubMedCrossRef

43.

Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Troyanovich S, Janik T, Holland B (2000) Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method: which to choose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine 25:2072–2078. doi:10.1097/00007632-200008150-00011 PubMedCrossRef

44.

Harrison DD, Harrison DE, Janik T, Cailliet R, Ferrantelli J, Haas J, Holland B (2004) Modeling of the sagittal cervical spine as a method to discriminate hypolordosis: results of elliptical and circular modeling in 72 asymptomatic subjects, 52 acute neck pain subjects, and 70 chronic neck pain subjects. Spine 29:2485–2492. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000144449.90741.7c PubMedCrossRef

45.

Harrison DE, Janik T, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Harmon S (2002) Can the thoracic kyphosis be modeled with a simple geometric shape? The results of circular and elliptical modeling in 80 asymptomatic patients. J Spinal Disord 15:213–220

46.

Harrison DD, Janik T, Troyanovich S, Holland B (1996) Comparisons of lordotic cervical spine curvatures to a theoretical ideal model of the static sagittal cervical spine. Spine 21:667–675. doi:10.1097/00007632-199603150-00002 PubMedCrossRef

47.

Hicks G, George S, Nevitt M, Cauley J, Vogt M (2006) Measurement of lumbar lordosis: inter-rater reliability, minimum detectable change and longitudinal variation. J Spinal Disord 19:501–506. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000210116.94273.ad CrossRef

48.

Huysmans T, Haex B, Van Audekercke R, Vander Sloten J, Van Der Perre G (2004) Three-dimensional mathematical reconstruction of the spinal shape, based on active contours. J Biomech 37:1793–1798. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.01.020 PubMedCrossRef

49.

Ishihara A (1968) Roentgenographic studies on the normal pattern of the cervical curvature. Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 42:1033–1044. (in Japanese)

50.

Janik T, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Troyanovich S, Harrison DE (1998) Can the sagittal lumbar curvature be closely approximated by an ellipse? J Orthop Res 16:766–770. doi:10.1002/jor.1100160620 PubMedCrossRef

51.

Jeffries B, Tarlton M, De Smet A, Dwyer S, Brower A (1980) Computerized measurement and analysis of scoliosis: a more accurate representation of the shape of the curve. Radiology 134:381–385PubMed

52.

Kaminsky J, Klinge P, Rodt T, Bokemeyer M, Luedemann W, Samii M (2004) Specially adapted interactive tools for an improved 3D-segmentation of the spine. Comput Med Imaging Graph 28:119–127. doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2003.12.001 PubMedCrossRef

53.

Korovessis P, Stamatakis M, Baikousis A (1998) Reciprocal angulation of vertebral bodies in the sagittal plane in an asymptomatic Greek population. Spine 23:700–704. doi:10.1097/00007632-199803150-00010 PubMedCrossRef

54.

Labelle H, Dansereau J, Bellefleur C, Jéquier J (1995) Variability of geometric measurements from three-dimensional reconstructions of scoliotic spines and rib cages. Eur Spine J 4:88–94. doi:10.1007/BF00278918 PubMedCrossRef

55.

Loder R, Spiegel D, Gutknecht S, Kleist K, Ly T, Mehbod A (2004) The assessment of intraobserver and interobserver error in the measurement of noncongenital scoliosis in children less or equal 10 years of age. Spine 29:2548–2553. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000144828.72721.d8 PubMedCrossRef

56.

Loder R, Urquhart A, Steen H, Graziano G, Hensinger R, Schlesinger A, Schork M, Shyr Y (1995) Variability in Cobb angle measurements in children with congenital scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77:768–770PubMed

57.

Mac-Thiong JM, Labelle H, Charlebois M, Huot MP, de Guise J (2003) Sagittal plane analysis of the spine and pelvis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis according to the coronal curve type. Spine 28:1404–1409. doi:10.1097/00007632-200307010-00010 PubMedCrossRef

58.

Mitton D, Landry C, Véron S, Skalli W, Lavaste F, De Guise J (2000) 3D reconstruction method from biplanar radiography using non-stereocorresponding points and elastic deformable meshes. Med Biol Eng Comput 38:133–139. doi:10.1007/BF02344767 PubMedCrossRef

59.

Mitulescu A, Semaan I, De Guise J, Leborgne P, Adamsbaum C, Skalli W (2001) Validation of the non-stereo corresponding points stereoradiographic 3D reconstruction technique. Med Biol Eng Comput 39:152–158. doi:10.1007/BF02344797 PubMedCrossRef

60.

Mok J, Berven S, Diab M, Hackbarth M, Hu S, Deviren V (2008) Comparison of observer variation in conventional and three digital radiographic methods used in the evaluation of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 33:681–686. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318178e67f PubMedCrossRef

61.

Morrissy R, Goldsmith G, Hall E, Kehl D, Cowie G (1990) Measurement of the Cobb angle on radiographs of patients who have scoliosis: evaluation of intrinsic error. J Bone Jt Surg Am 72:320–327

62.

Oda M, Rauh S, Gregory P, Silverman F, Bleck E (1982) The significance of roentgenographic measurement in scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 2:378–382PubMed

63.

Ohara A, Miyamoto K, Naganawa T, Matsumoto K, Shimizu K (2006) Reliabilities of and correlations among five standard methods of assessing the sagittal alignment of the cervical spine. Spine 31:2585–2591. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000240656.79060.18 PubMedCrossRef

64.

Patwardhan A, Rimkus A, Gavin T, Bueche M, Meade K, Bielski R, Ibrahim K (1996) Geometric analysis of coronal decompensation in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 21:1192–1200. doi:10.1097/00007632-199605150-00011 PubMedCrossRef

65.

Pearcy M, Whittle M (1982) Movements of the lumbar spine measured by three-dimensional X-ray analysis. J Biomed Eng 4:107–112. doi:10.1016/0141-5425(82)90070-X PubMedCrossRef

66.

Peng Z, Zhong J WeeW, Lee JH (2005) Automated vertebra detection and segmentation from the whole spine MR images. In: Zhang Y, Xu L, Roux C, Zhuang T, Tamura T, Galiana H (eds), Proceedings of the 27th annual international conference of the engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBS)—EMBC 2005. IEEE, Shanghai, China, pp 2527–2530

67.

Perdriolle R, Le Borgne P, Dansereau J, De Guise J, Labelle H (2001) Idiopathic scoliosis in three dimensions: a succession of two-dimensional deformities? Spine 26:2719–2726. doi:10.1097/00007632-200112150-00019 PubMedCrossRef

68.

Pinel-Giroux FM, Mac-Thiong JM, de Guise J, Berthonnaud E, Labelle H (2006) Computerized assessment of sagittal curvatures of the spine: comparison between Cobb and tangent circles techniques. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:507–512. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000211206.15997.dd PubMedCrossRef

69.

Polly D, Kilkelly F, McHale K, Asplund L, Mulligan M, Chang A (1996) Measurement of lumbar lordosis: evaluation of intraobserver, interobserver, and technique variability. Spine 21:1530–1535. doi:10.1097/00007632-199607010-00008 PubMedCrossRef

70.

Poncet P, Dansereau J, Labelle H (2001) Geometric torsion in idiopathic scoliosis: three-dimensional analysis and proposal for a new classification. Spine 26:2235–2243. doi:10.1097/00007632-200110150-00015 PubMedCrossRef

71.

Poncet P, Trochu F, Dansereau J (1999) Curvilinear three-dimensional modeling of spinal curves with dual kriging. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 2:295–308. doi:10.1080/10255849908907994 CrossRef

72.

Prince R, Devine A, Dick I (2007) The clinical utility of measured kyphosis as a predictor of the presence of vertebral deformities. Osteoporos Int 18:621–627. doi:10.1007/s00198-006-0289-5 PubMedCrossRef

73.

Pruijs J, Hageman M, Keessen W, van der Meer R, van Wieringen J (1994) Variation in Cobb angle measurements in scoliosis. Skeletal Radiol 23:517–520. doi:10.1007/BF00223081 PubMedCrossRef

74.

Rab G, Chao E (1977) Verification of roentgenographic landmarks in the lumbar spine. Spine 2:287–293. doi:10.1097/00007632-197712000-00008 CrossRef

75.

Rajnics P, Pomero V, Templier A, Lavaste F, Illes T (2001) Computer-assisted assessment of spinal sagittal plane radiographs. J Spinal Disord Tech 14:135–142. doi:10.1097/00002517-200104000-00008 CrossRef

76.

Rosenfeldt M, Harding I, Hauptfleisch J, Fairbank J (2005) A comparison of traditional protractor versus Oxford Cobbometer radiographic measurement: intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. Spine 30:440–443. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000153401.78638.cb PubMedCrossRef

77.

Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2005) Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine 30:346–353. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000152379.54463.65 PubMedCrossRef

78.

Saraste H, Ostman A (1986) Stereophotogrammetry in the evaluation of the treatment of scoliosis. Int Orthop 10:63–67PubMed

79.

79. Scholten P, Veldhuizen A (1987) Analysis of Cobb angle measurements in scoliosis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2:7–13. doi:10.1016/0268-0033(87)90039-8

80.

Schuler T, Subach B, Branch C, Foley K, Burkus J, Lumbar Spine Study Group (2004) Segmental lumbar lordosis: manual versus computer-assisted measurement using seven different techniques. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:372–379. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000109836.59382.47 PubMedCrossRef

81.

Shea K, Stevens P, Nelson M, Smith J, Masters K, Yandow S (1998) A comparison of manual versus computer-assisted radiographic measurement: Intraobserver measurement variability for Cobb angles. Spine 23:551–555. doi:10.1097/00007632-199803010-00007 PubMedCrossRef

82.

Silber J, Lipetz J, Hayes V, Lonner B (2004) Measurement variability in the assessment of sagittal alignment of the cervical spine: a comparison of the Gore and Cobb methods. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:301–305. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000095824.98982.53 PubMedCrossRef

83.

Singer K, Edmondston S, Day R, Breidahl W (1994) Computer-assisted curvature assessment and Cobb angle determination of the thoracic kyphosis: an in vivo and in vitro comparison. Spine 19:1381–1384PubMedCrossRef

84.

Singer K, Jones T, Breidahl P (1990) A comparison of radiographic and computer-assisted measurements of thoracic and thoracolumbar sagittal curvature. Skeletal Radiol 19:21–26. doi:10.1007/BF00197923 PubMedCrossRef

85.

Stagnara P, De Mauroy J, Dran G, Gonon G, Costanzo G, Dimnet J, Pasquet A (1982) Reciprocal angulation of vertebral bodies in a sagittal plane: approach to references for the evaluation of kyphosis and lordosis. Spine 7:335–342. doi:10.1097/00007632-198207000-00003 PubMedCrossRef

86.

Stokes I (1994) Three-dimensional terminology of spinal deformity: a report presented to the Scoliosis Research Society by the Scoliosis Research Society Working Group on 3-D terminology of spinal deformity. Spine 19:236–248PubMedCrossRef

87.

Stokes I (1998) Point of view: lumbar lordosis measurement: a new method versus Cobb technique. Spine 23:79–80. doi:10.1097/00007632-199801010-00017 CrossRef

88.

Stokes I, Aronson D, Ronchetti P, Labelle H, Dansereau J (1993) Reexamination of the Cobb and Ferguson angles: bigger is not always better. J Spinal Disord Tech 6:333–338. doi:10.1097/00002517-199306040-00007 CrossRef

89.

Stokes I, Aronsson D (2006) Computer-assisted algorithms improve reliability of King classification and Cobb angle measurement of scoliosis. Spine 31:665–670. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000203708.49972.ab PubMedCrossRef

90.

Stokes I, Bigalow L, Moreland M (1987) Three-dimensional spinal curvature in idiopathic scoliosis. J Orthop Res 5:102–113. doi:10.1002/jor.1100050113 PubMedCrossRef

91.

Stotts A, Smith J, Santora S, Roach J, D’Astous J (2002) Measurement of spinal kyphosis: implications for the management of Scheuermann’s kyphosis. Spine 27:2143–2146. doi:10.1097/00007632-200210010-00013 PubMedCrossRef

92.

Suh C (1974) The fundamentals of computer aided X-ray analysis of the spine. J Biomech 7:161–169. doi:10.1016/0021-9290(74)90057-8 PubMedCrossRef

93.

Tang F-h, Chan L, H-p Lau, P-y Tsui, C-w Cheung (2008) Computer-generated index for evaluation of idiopathic scoliosis in digital chest images: a comparison with digital measurement. J Digit Imaging 21:S113–S120. doi:10.1007/s10278-007-9050-7 CrossRef

94.

Tayyab N, Samartzis D, Altiok H, Shuff C, Lubicky J, Herman J, Khanna N (2007) The reliability and diagnostic value of radiographic criteria in sagittal spine deformities: comparison of the vertebral wedge ratio to the segmental Cobb angle. Spine 32:E451–E459. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3180ca7d2d PubMedCrossRef

95.

Torell G, Nachemson A, Haderspeck-Grib K, Schultz A (1985) Standing and supine Cobb measures in girls with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 10:425–427. doi:10.1097/00007632-198506000-00004 PubMedCrossRef

96.

Troyanovich S, Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Holland B, Janik T (1998) Further analysis of the reliability of the posterior tangent lateral lumbar radiographic mensuration procedure: concurrent validity of computer-aided X-ray digitization. J Manip Physiol Ther 21:460–467

97.

Vaz G, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2002) Sagittal morphology and equilibrium of pelvis and spine. Eur Spine J 11:80–87. doi:10.1007/s005860000224 PubMedCrossRef

98.

Vedantam R, Lenke L, Keeney J, Bridwell K (1998) Comparison of standing sagittal spinal alignment in asymptomatic adolescents and adults. Spine 23:211–215. doi:10.1097/00007632-199801150-00012 PubMedCrossRef

99.

Verdonck B, Nijlunsing R, Gerritsen F, Cheung J, Wever D, Veldhuizen A, Devillers S, Makram-Ebeid S (1998) Computer assisted quantitative analysis of deformities of the human spine. In: Wells W, Colchester A, Delp S (eds) Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS): Proceedings of the 1st international conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, MICCAI’98, Springer, Cambridge, MA, USA, vol 1496, pp 822–831

100.

Vialle R, Levassor N, Rillardon L, Templier A, Skalli W, Guigui P (2005) Radiographic analysis of the sagittal alignment and balance of the spine in asymptomatic subjects. J Bone Jt Surg Am 87:260–267. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02043 CrossRef

101.

Voutsinas S, MacEwen G (1986) Sagittal profiles of the spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 210:235–242PubMed

102.

Vrtovec T, Likar B, Pernuš F (2005) Automated curved planar reformation of 3D spine images. Phys Med Biol 50:4527–4540. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/50/19/007 PubMedCrossRef

103.

Vrtovec T, Likar B, Pernuš F (2008) Quantitative analysis of spinal curvature in 3D: application to CT images of normal spine. Phys Med Biol 53:1895–1908. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/53/7/006 PubMedCrossRef

104.

Vrtovec T, Ourselin S, Lavier G, Likar B, Pernuš F (2007) Automated generation of curved planar reformations from MR images of the spine. Phys Med Biol 52:2865–2878. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/52/10/015 PubMedCrossRef

105.

Vrtovec T, Penuš F, Likar B (2009) A review of methods for quantitative evaluation of axial vertebral rotation. Eur Spine J (in press). doi:10.1007/s00586-009-0914-z

106.

Wambolt A, Spencer D (1987) A segmental analysis of the distribution of lumbar lordosis in the normal spine. Orthop Trans 11:92–93

107.

Wessberg P, Danielson B, Willén J (2006) Comparison of Cobb angles in idiopathic scoliosis on standing radiographs and supine axially loaded MRI. Spine 31:3039–3044. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000249513.91050.80 PubMedCrossRef

108.

Wills B, Auerbach J, Zhu X, Caird M, Horn B, Flynn J, Drummond D, Dormans J, Ecker M (2007) Comparison of Cobb angle measurement of scoliosis radiographs with preselected end vertebrae: traditional versus digital acquisition. Spine 32:98–105. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000251086.84420.d1 PubMedCrossRef

109.

Yang B, Yang C, Ondra S (2007) A novel mathematical model of the sagittal spine. Spine 32:466–470. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000255207.44141.e9 PubMedCrossRef

Titel: A review of methods for quantitative evaluation of spinal curvature
verfasst von: Tomaž Vrtovec
Franjo Pernuš
Boštjan Likar
Publikationsdatum: 01.05.2009
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: European Spine Journal / Ausgabe 5/2009
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0913-0

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Notfall-TEP der Hüfte ist auch bei 90-Jährigen machbar

26.04.2024 Hüft-TEP Nachrichten

Ob bei einer Notfalloperation nach Schenkelhalsfraktur eine Hemiarthroplastik oder eine totale Endoprothese (TEP) eingebaut wird, sollte nicht allein vom Alter der Patientinnen und Patienten abhängen. Auch über 90-Jährige können von der TEP profitieren.

Arthroskopie kann Knieprothese nicht hinauszögern

25.04.2024 Gonarthrose Nachrichten

Ein arthroskopischer Eingriff bei Kniearthrose macht im Hinblick darauf, ob und wann ein Gelenkersatz fällig wird, offenbar keinen Unterschied.

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

25.04.2024 Hypertonie Nachrichten

Beginnen ältere Männer im Pflegeheim eine Antihypertensiva-Therapie, dann ist die Frakturrate in den folgenden 30 Tagen mehr als verdoppelt. Besonders häufig stürzen Demenzkranke und Männer, die erstmals Blutdrucksenker nehmen. Dafür spricht eine Analyse unter US-Veteranen.

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

23.04.2024 Leitsymptom Rückenschmerzen Nachrichten

Personen mit chronischen Rückenschmerzen, die von einfühlsamen Ärzten und Ärztinnen betreut werden, berichten über weniger Beschwerden und eine bessere Lebensqualität.

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2009

Allogenic versus autologous cancellous bone in lumbar segmental spondylodesis: a randomized prospective study

Lumbar lordosis in osteoporosis and in osteoarthritis

MRI analysis of muscle/fat index of the superficial and deep neck muscles in an asymptomatic cohort

Minimum 2-year outcome of cervical laminoplasty with deep extensor muscle-preserving approach: impact on cervical spine function and quality of life

Comparison of kyphoplasty with use of a calcium phosphate cement and non-operative therapy in patients with traumatic non-osteoporotic vertebral fractures