Comparison of Cobb angle measurements for scoliosis assessment using different imaging modalities: a systematic review

Author:

d'Astorg Henri1,Bourret Stephane2,Ramos-Pascual Sonia3ORCID,Szadkowski Marc1,Le Huec Jean-Charles2

Affiliation:

1. Centre Orthopédique Santy, Hôpital Privé Jean Mermoz, Ramsay Santé, Lyon, France

2. Polyclinique Bordeaux Nord Aquitaine, Vertebra Center, Bordeaux, France

3. ReSurg SA, Rue Saint-Jean 22, Nyon, Switzerland

Abstract

Purpose To report accuracy, repeatability, and agreement of Cobb angle measurements on radiographs and/or stereo-radiographs (EOS) compared against one another or against other imaging modalities. Methods This review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search was conducted on 21 July 2021 using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane. Two researchers independently performed title/abstract/full-text screening and data extraction. Studies were eligible if they reported Cobb angles, and/or their repeatability and agreement, measured on radiographs and/or EOS compared against one another or against other imaging modalities. Results Of the 2993 records identified, 845 were duplicates and 2212 were excluded during title/abstract/full-text screening. Two more relevant studies were identified from references of eligible studies, leaving 14 studies for inclusion. Two studies compared Cobb angles from EOS vs CT, while 12 compared radiographs vs other imaging modalities: EOS, CT, MRI, digital fluoroscopy, or dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Angles from standing radiographs tended to be higher than those from supine MRI and CT, and angles from standing EOS tended to be higher than those from supine or prone CT. Correlations across modalities were strong (R = 0.78–0.97). Inter-observer agreement was excellent for all studies (ICC = 0.77–1.00), except one (ICC = 0.13 radiographs and ICC = 0.68 for MRI). Conclusion Differences of up to 11º were found when comparing Cobb angles across combinations of imaging modalities and patient positions. It is not possible, however, to determine whether the differences observed are due to the change of modality, position, or both. Therefore, clinicians should be careful when utilizing the thresholds for standing radiographs across other modalities and positions for diagnosis and assessment of scoliosis.

Publisher

Bioscientifica

Subject

Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery

Reference53 articles.

1. 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;Stokes,1994

2. Surgical versus non-surgical interventions in people with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis;Bettany-Saltikov,2015

3. Screening for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force;Dunn,2018

4. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: natural history and long term treatment effects;Asher,2006

5. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: review and current concepts;Reamy,2001

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3