The centroid, two-line Cobb, and Harrison posterior tangent methods, when applied to measurements of kyphosis, are all reliable and have similar small error ranges. The centroid method does not give an accurate segmental analysis, uses more points and more time in clinical applications, and results in smaller angles of total kyphosis than the Cobb or posterior tangent methods. The posterior tangents are the slopes along the curve.

Although both methods are reliable with the majority of correlation coefficients in the high range (ICC > 0.7), from the literature, the posterior tangent method has a smaller standard error of measurement than four-line Cobb methods. Global Cobb angles compare only the ends of the cervical curve and cannot delineate what happens to the curve internally. Posterior tangents are the slopes along the curve and can provide an analysis of any buckled areas of the cervical curve. The posterior tangent method is part of an engineering analysis (first derivative) and more accurately depicts cervical curvature than the Cobb method.

No abstract

No abstract

Predicted values from the geometric model were comparable with the measurements of the relative rotation angles at each vertebral interspace, absolute rotation angles from C2 to C7, and height-to-length ratios. A cervical lordosis of 34 degrees and a height-to-length ratio of 0.97 are suggested for clinical and theoretical outcomes.

No abstract

The mean cervical lordosis for all groups could be closely modeled with a circle. Pain groups had hypolordosis and larger radiuses of curvature compared with the normal group. Circular modeling may be a valuable tool in the discrimination between normal lordosis and hypolordosis in normal and pain subjects.

No abstract