Characterizing the Differences Between the 2D and 3D Measurements of Spine in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

Overview

Journal Eur Spine J

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2016 May 6

PMID 27146809

Citations 24

Authors

Saba Pasha

Patrick J Cahill

John P Dormans

John M Flynn

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Although adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is known to impact the 3D orientation of the spine and pelvis, the impact of the vertebral position relative to the X-ray scanner on the agreement between 2D and 3D measurements of a curve has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to investigate the agreement between 2D and 3D measurements of the scoliotic curve as a function of the 3D spinal parameters in AIS.

Methods: Three independent observers measured the thoracic and lumbar Cobb angles, Kyphosis, and lordosis on the posterior-anterior and lateral X-rays of AIS patients. The 3D reconstructions were created from bi-planar X-rays and the 3D spinal parameters were calculated in both radio and patient planes using SterEOS software. The degree of agreement between the 2D and 3D measurements was tested and its relationship with the curve axial rotation was determined.

Results: 2D and 3D measurements of the sagittal plane spinal parameters were significantly different (p < 0.05). The differences between the 2D and 3D measurements were related to the apical vertebrae rotation, the orientation of the plane of maximum curvature, pelvic axial rotation, and the curve magnitude. Differences between the radio plane and patient plane measurements were related to the pelvic axial rotation, Cobb angles, and apical vertebrae rotation, p < 0.05.

Conclusion: Clinically and statistically significant differences were observed between the 2D and 3D measurements of the scoliotic spine. The differences between the 2D and 3D techniques were significant in sagittal plane and were related to the spinal curve and pelvic rotation in transverse plane.

Citing Articles

Automated 3D Cobb Angle Measurement Using U-Net in CT Images of Preoperative Scoliosis Patients.

Li L, Zhang T, Lin F, Li Y, Wong M J Imaging Inform Med. 2024; 38(1):309-317.

PMID: 39117939 PMC: 11811352. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-024-01211-w.

Quantifying a novel three-dimensional marker of scoliosis.

Arginteanu T, Gallagher R, Borja A, Glauser G, Smith L, Pasha S Spine Deform. 2023; 12(1):231-237.

PMID: 37737438 DOI: 10.1007/s43390-023-00752-4.

Three- instead of two-dimensional evaluation of key parameters alters the choice of the lowest instrumented vertebra in Lenke 1 and 2 AIS patients.

Schelfaut S, Moens P, Overbergh T, Cornelis S, Van Campenhout A, Moke L Spine Deform. 2023; 11(5):1137-1143.

PMID: 37284907 DOI: 10.1007/s43390-023-00711-z.

Patient and surgical predictors of 3D correction in posterior spinal fusion: a systematic review.

Wan S, Wong D, To S, Meng N, Zhang T, Cheung J Eur Spine J. 2023; 32(6):1927-1946.

PMID: 37079078 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-07708-2.

A fresh look at spinal alignment and deformities: Automated analysis of a large database of 9832 biplanar radiographs.

Galbusera F, Bassani T, Panico M, Sconfienza L, Cina A Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022; 10:863054.

PMID: 35910028 PMC: 9335010. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.863054.

References

Stokes I . 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 1994; 19(2):236-48. View

Villemure I, Aubin C, Grimard G, Dansereau J, Labelle H . Progression of vertebral and spinal three-dimensional deformities in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a longitudinal study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(20):2244-50. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200110150-00016. View

Lenke L, Betz R, Harms J, Bridwell K, Clements D, Lowe T . Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83(8):1169-81. View

Morrison D, Chan A, Hill D, Parent E, Lou E . Correlation between Cobb angle, spinous process angle (SPA) and apical vertebrae rotation (AVR) on posteroanterior radiographs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Eur Spine J. 2014; 24(2):306-12. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3684-1. View

Kadoury S, Labelle H, Parent S . 3D spine reconstruction of postoperative patients from multi-level manifold ensembles. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2014; 17(Pt 3):361-8. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-10443-0_46. View

Schmid S, Buck F, Boni T, Farshad M . Radiographic measurement error of the scoliotic curve angle depending on positioning of the patient and the side of scoliotic curve. Eur Spine J. 2015; 25(2):379-84. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4259-5. View

Somoskeoy S, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Bogyo C, Illes T . Accuracy and reliability of coronal and sagittal spinal curvature data based on patient-specific three-dimensional models created by the EOS 2D/3D imaging system. Spine J. 2012; 12(11):1052-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.002. View

Gille O, Champain N, Benchikh-El-Fegoun A, Vital J, Skalli W . Reliability of 3D reconstruction of the spine of mild scoliotic patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32(5):568-73. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000256866.25747.b3. View

Sangole A, Aubin C, Labelle H, Stokes I, Lenke L, Jackson R . Three-dimensional classification of thoracic scoliotic curves. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(1):91-9. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181877bbb. View

10.

Ilharreborde B, Steffen J, Nectoux E, Vital J, Mazda K, Skalli W . Angle measurement reproducibility using EOS three-dimensional reconstructions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by posterior instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(20):E1306-13. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182293548. View

11.

Humbert L, de Guise J, Aubert B, Godbout B, Skalli W . 3D reconstruction of the spine from biplanar X-rays using parametric models based on transversal and longitudinal inferences. Med Eng Phys. 2009; 31(6):681-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2009.01.003. View

12.

Somoskeoy S, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Bogyo C, Illes T . Clinical validation of coronal and sagittal spinal curve measurements based on three-dimensional vertebra vector parameters. Spine J. 2012; 12(10):960-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.08.175. View

13.

Labelle H, Aubin C, Jackson R, Lenke L, Newton P, Parent S . Seeing the spine in 3D: how will it change what we do?. J Pediatr Orthop. 2010; 31(1 Suppl):S37-45. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181fd8801. View

14.

Cheriet F, Meunier J . Self-calibration of a biplane X-ray imaging system for an optimal three dimensional reconstruction. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1999; 23(3):133-41. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-6111(99)00006-3. View

15.

Kadoury S, Labelle H . Classification of three-dimensional thoracic deformities in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis from a multivariate analysis. Eur Spine J. 2011; 21(1):40-9. PMC: 3252447. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-2004-2. View

16.

Kadoury S, Cheriet F, Laporte C, Labelle H . A versatile 3D reconstruction system of the spine and pelvis for clinical assessment of spinal deformities. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2007; 45(6):591-602. DOI: 10.1007/s11517-007-0182-1. View

17.

Illes T, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Somoskeoy S . Breakthrough in three-dimensional scoliosis diagnosis: significance of horizontal plane view and vertebra vectors. Eur Spine J. 2010; 20(1):135-43. PMC: 3036019. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1566-8. View

18.

Lark R, Yaszay B, Bastrom T, Newton P . Adding thoracic fusion levels in Lenke 5 curves: risks and benefits. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 38(2):195-200. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182634c85. View

19.

Glaser D, Doan J, Newton P . Comparison of 3-dimensional spinal reconstruction accuracy: biplanar radiographs with EOS versus computed tomography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37(16):1391-7. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182518a15. View

20.

Cho R, Yaszay B, Bartley C, Bastrom T, Newton P . Which Lenke 1A curves are at the greatest risk for adding-on... and why?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37(16):1384-90. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824bac7a. View