Elsevier

Manual Therapy

Volume 18, Issue 3, June 2013, Pages 243-247
Manual Therapy

Original article
Validity of surface markers placement on the cervical spine for craniocervical posture assessment

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.10.012Get rights and content

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the ability of a physical therapist to place surface markers on the skin over spinous process of C2, C4, C6, and C7 by evaluating the markers positioning using radiographs. A total of 39 healthy female subjects participated. From 39 subjects, 22 had 2 radiographs taken and 17 had 1 radiograph taken. This study presents the results from the 22 subjects and from all 39 subjects together. The markers used were visible on the radiographs. The surface markers placement was tested by using percentage agreement. The criteria used were based on the direction of palpation. Only the markers placed that presented the center of the markers tip aligned to the tip of the spinous process was considered an acceptable placement. Only one level of agreement was considered. A misplaced marker was measured by its relation with the vertebra above or below. From the 22 subjects, the total percentage of agreement was 87.5%. Of the 12.5% error, 1.7% (3) occurred attempting to find C2; 4.5% (8) for C4; 3.4% (6) for C6; and 2.8% (5) for C7. From the total of 39 subjects, the total percentage of agreement was 87.8%. Of the 12.2% error 1.3% (2) occurred attempting to find C2; 2.6% (4) for C4; 3.2% (5) for C6; and 5.2% (8) for C7. Based on the results from this study, clinicians and researchers should take into account possible errors on surface markers placement on the cervical spine when measuring craniocervical posture using photographs.

Introduction

Evaluation of posture by using measurements on photographs (i.e. photogrammetry) has been increasingly used in research. The use of photogrammetry is considered more objective compared to the use of visual assessment that is subjective and therefore less sensitive (Gadotti and Biasotto-Gonzalez, 2010) and photogrammetry is cheaper and safer when compared to the use of radiographs (Chen and Lee, 1997).

The most commonly reported angle used in studies that investigate the craniocervical posture using photogrammetry is the craniovertebral angle (CVA) (Hackney et al., 1993; Watson and Trott, 1993; Lee et al., 1995; Johnson, 1998; Visscher et al., 2002; Gadotti and Magee, 2008; Armijo-Olivo et al., 2011). This angle refers to the degree of forward head posture, and is defined as the angle between the true horizontal through the spinous process of C7, with a line connecting the spinous process of C7 with the tragus. This angle is considered by some to be the clinical standard for measuring sagittal craniocervical posture (Hackney et al., 1993; Watson and Trott, 1993; Lee et al., 1995; Johnson, 1998; Visscher et al., 2002). The cervical inclination and cervical lordosis can also be measured using superficial measurements (Refshauge et al., 1994; Gadotti and Magee, 2008). The inclination angle was determined by a line connecting the spinous process of C2 and C7 with a horizontal line, and the cervical angle was derived from a line connecting C2 and C4, with a line connecting C4 and C7. Fig. 1 show the angles used to measure craniocervical posture using photogrammetry.

Manual palpation is required in order to identify the bony references for the surface marker placement and consequently to measure the angles. The reliability of the postural measurements depends on the ability of the clinician to correctly identify the reference points. If the reference marker is incorrectly placed, not only may intra-rater reliability be affected when performing repeated measurements, but also the measurements of posture reproducibility (intra-subject reliability) and validity. Although the ability to palpate a spinous process is considered to be a basic skill for manual therapy techniques, palpation procedures may fail. According to Robinson et al. (2009) few studies have investigated the validity of locating cervical spine spinous process by palpation compared to the gold standard for identification of spinal levels (radiographs).

The objective of this study was to determine the validity of placing reference markers on the cervical spine by manual palpation by comparing the results to radiographs. The reference points used to determine the angles commonly used to evaluate sagittal craniocervical posture will be tested.

Section snippets

Subjects

A total of 39 healthy female subjects (age mean = 33 ± 8.03 years old and body mass index = 22.7 ± 2.6) participated. They included subjects presenting with a normal craniocervical region defined as normal range of motion and absence of pain as evaluated by a physical therapist. Subjects were excluded if they presented with frequent pain in the craniocervical region, had a history of surgery or trauma to the head/neck, systemic disorder, and/or body mass index (BMI) greater than 30. This study

Results

From the first 22 subjects, 44 radiographs (2 radiographs from each subject) were analyzed which represents 176 surface markers placements (44 multiplied by 4 placements on each subject – C2, C4, C6, and C7). Of these 176 placements, 22 were misplaced (12.5%). Of the 12.5% of error, 1.7% (3) occurred attempting to find C2; 4.5% (8) for C4; 3.4% (6) for C6; and 2.8% (5) for C7. The misplaced surface markers were placed in between spinous processes or on the spinous process above or below the

Discussion

This study evaluated the validity of a physical therapist to place reference markers on the skin over spinous process of C2, C4, C6, and C7 by evaluating the markers positioning using radiographs (gold standard). As showed in Fig. 2, the direction of palpation was not the same for all spinous processes. Because of the natural curve of the cervicothoracic junction, the palpation of C6 and C7 was more caudal.

The ability to palpate spinous process is considered to be a basic skill for manual

Conclusions

The validity of markers placement on the cervical spine spinous processes was found to have good agreement based on one examiner. The least errors found were associated with the attempt to find C2 spinous process. Surprisingly, the markers placed on spinous process of C7 presented with the most errors when all the subjects were included. More studies should investigate the validity of markers placement on the cervical spine and include more raters with different levels of experience so the

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Alun Morgan Memorial Orthopaedic Physiotherapy from the Physiotherapy Foundation of Canada and Alberta Provincial CIHR Strategic Training Program in Bone and Joint Health. We would like to thank Jan Dubeta and the Glen Sather Clinic at the University of Alberta for the help in taking the radiographs.

References (21)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (30)

  • Accuracy of Palpation Procedures for Locating the C1 Transverse Process and Masseter Muscle as Confirmed by Computed Tomography Images

    2022, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
    Citation Excerpt :

    Also, as related to the masseter muscle, it could be argued that placing the electrode without guidance from the palpation procedure might yield similar results. A total agreement of 87.5% was reported25 for a single examiner for placing a marker on the cervical spinous process by manual palpation for craniocervical posture assessment. However, to our knowledge, there are no similar studies for marker placement on C1TP—with or without palpation procedures—and, thus, these effects require investigation.55

  • Normative cervical spine kinematics of a circumduction task

    2021, Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Finally, note that the SSANOVA approach requires fewer assumptions about the data compared to SPM, so the SSANOVA approach should produce more robust results in real data applications. This study was limited to global head-to-torso kinematics using anatomic landmarks and superficial markers, which can be prone to palpation error (Gadotti and Magee, 2013) and skin motion artifact (Stagni et al., 2005). The data set for this study was primarily composed of a relatively young cohort (mean age of 26 years with an age range of 18 – 45 years), which limits the application of the normative bands to this age range.

View all citing articles on Scopus
1

Tel.: +780 492 5765.

View full text