Validation of new clinical quantitative analysis software applicable in spine orthopaedic studies

Abstract

IntroductionThe treatment of most spinal diseases is a difficult task because of the rate of immediate, mid-and long-term complications and failures [16]. Surgical planning and clinical follow up often rely on postural and/or dynamic X-ray exams, among other imaging options.Many authors investigated the radiological parameters liable to rule patient's evolution, such as postural and balance parameters [2,4,8,9,11,12,26]. These parameters might be classified in pelvic parameters, either morphologic (incidence) or positional (sacral slope [4,11,12], pelvic angle [8,9]), and spinal parameters (such as lordosis, kyphosis [4,11,12] or plumblines [8,9]). Their measurement is tedious and time consuming while the accuracy of the results may be highly variable depending on the method employed. Furthermore, when trying to compare the results between studies, a major difficulty comes from the differences in the definition, identification and measurement of parameters.Recent computer-based tools allowed for a rapid progress in quantitative measurements of a large range of parameters [9,17,19,20,23,26]. Moreover, these tools allow easy standardisation of X-ray films measurements, which is of paramount importance when comparing studies in multicentric analysis. However, validation of these tools is essential [3,17,18].In 1999, the team of LBM and LIO developed an Xray films analysis software (SpineView 1.0) allowing for the measurement of the main lumbar dynamic and sagittal postural parameters of the spine. The evaluation of this first software was achieved by comparison with direct measurements on plain X-ray films [17,18], and showed good reliability of the measurements. Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate an X-ray films analysis software, i.e. to estimate the reliability and validity of clinical measurements by means of this software. The authors first performed tests of precision and reproducibility of measures. The precision for dynamic modules was estimated at ±2°for the lumbar analysis and ±3°for the cervical one. Mean reproducibility coefficients calculated for postural modules are about 4°for the angular parameters and 3 mm for the linear ones. We also evaluated clinical applicability of the software through its validity. Reference values calculated on a population of healthy subjects showed agreement with the literature. Then, when analysing postural X-ray films of severe scoliotic patients, we found that inter-observer reproducibility coefficients show a lower reliability of measurements; the main cause seems to be the low visibility of anatomic landmarks due to the quality of X-ray films and to the degree of deformity. This study allowed to better estimate the reliability and the usefulness of this tool, allowing for multicentric studies and exchanges.Keywords Spine AE X-ray AE Quantitative analysis AE Software AE Motion AE Balance Eur Spine J (2006) 15: 982-991

Three-dimensional Morphologic Study of the Child’s Hip: Which Parameters Are Reproducible?

“…Reproducibility of pelvic parameters was good, with a 95% CI inferior to 3°, confirming the findings of Champain et al [4]. They reported pelvic tilt had a reproducibility of 1.2°, sacral slope of 4.0°, and pelvic incidence of 3.4°.…”

Does Removing the Spinal Tether in a Porcine Scoliosis Model Result in Persistent Deformity?: A Pilot Study

“…Radiographic measurements included the maximum Cobb angle within the instrumented spine in the coronal and sagittal planes. The mean error during Cobb assessment on digital images is reportedly ± 2° [6].…”

Cervical compensatory alignment changes following correction of adult thoracic deformity: a multicenter experience in 57 patients with a 2-year follow-up

“…1 Outcome measures were sagittal radiographic parameters at the time of follow-up, which were analyzed using validated software (Spineview, ENSAM, Laboratory of Biomechanics). 4,18 All radiographic measurements were performed at a central location using conventional techniques. 15,19,24 Radiographic parameters for regional and global spinal alignment were represented as follows: C2-7 SVA (C-2 plumb line relative to C-7), CL (Cobb angle between the superior endplate of C-2 and the inferior endplate of C-7), T-1 slope (T1S), and T1S minus CL (T1S-CL) for cervical alignment; TK (T2-12; Cobb angle between the superior endplate of T-2 and the inferior endplate of T-12) and apical TK for thoracic alignment (maximal angle for the apex of the sagittal thoracic curve); lumbar lordosis (LL; Cobb angle between the superior endplates of L-1 and the sacrum), PT, pelvic incidence (PI), sacral slope (SS), and PI-LL mismatch for spinopelvic alignment; and C-7 SVA (C-7 plumb line relative to S-1), T-1 spinopelvic inclination (T1SPI), and T9SPI for global sagittal alignment.…”