Author:
Shakeri Mohammadreza,Mahdavi Seyed Mani,Rikhtehgar Masih,Soleimani Mohammad,Ghandhari Hasan,Jafari Behnam,Daneshmand Seyedehsan
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Sagittal and coronal standing radiographs have been the standard imaging for assessing spinal alignment. However, their disadvantages include distortion at the image edges and low interobserver reliability in some parameters. EOS® is a low-dose biplanar digital radiographic imaging system that can avoid distortion by obtaining high-definition images.
Methods
This study aimed to evaluate spinopelvic parameters in conventional lateral C1S1 upright radiographs and EOS® images and compare them. Patients with non-deformity changes were subjected to routine clinical examinations. Plain AP and lateral X-ray radiographs were obtained along the entire spine length. Patients were also referred for full-length EOS® of the spine. Thoracic Kyphosis (TK), Lumbar Lordosis (LL), Pelvic Tilt (PT), Sacral Slope (SS), Pelvic Incidence (PI), and Sagittal Vertical Axis (SVA) were measured in the two studies by an orthopedic surgeon and a radiologist using PACS software. Also, the orthopedic surgeon evaluated the studies again after two weeks. Intra- and inter-observer reliability was then assessed using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Also, the coefficient of variation was used to assess intra- and inter-observer reliability. Bland-Altman plots were drawn for each parameter.
Results
The mean age was 48.2 ± 6.6 years. Among the 50 patients, 30 (60%) were female. The mean ICC for TK, LL, PT, SS, PI, and SVA in EOS® images are 0.95, 0.95, 0.92, 0.90, 0.94, and 0.98, respectively, and in C1S1 radiography images, it was 0.92, 0.87, 0.94, 0.88, 0.93, and 0.98, respectively which shows good to excellent results. The coefficient of variation for intraobserver reliability was relatively low (< 18.6%), while it showed higher percentages in evaluating interobserver reliability (< 54.5%). Also, the Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement for each parameter.
Conclusion
Spinopelvic parameters, e.g., TK, LL, SS, PI, and SS, in EOS® are reliable and comparable to those in conventional lateral upright C1S1 radiographs.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Reference26 articles.
1. Schwab F, Lafage V, Boyce R, Skalli W, Farcy J-P. Gravity line analysis in adult volunteers: age-related correlation with spinal parameters, pelvic parameters, and foot position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:E959–67.
2. Lamartina C, Berjano P. Classification of sagittal imbalance based on spinal alignment and compensatory mechanisms. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:1177–89.
3. Buckland AJ, Vigdorchik J, Schwab FJ, Errico TJ, Lafage R, Ames C, et al. Acetabular anteversion changes due to spinal deformity correction: bridging the gap between hip and spine surgeons. JBJS. 2015;97:1913–20.
4. Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J, Roussouly P, Labelle H. Analysis of the sagittal balance of the spine and pelvis using shape and orientation parameters. Clin Spine Surg. 2005;18:40–7.
5. Descamps H. Modification of pelvic angle during the human growth. Biom Hum Anthropol. 1999;17:59–63.