Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Comparison of spinal curvature parameters as determined by the ZEBRIS spine examination method and the Cobb method in children with scoliosis

  • Mária Takács ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Mária Takács, Zsanett Orlovits, Bence Jáger, Rita M. Kiss

    Roles Data curation, Project administration, Resources, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Orthopedics, MÁV Hospital Szolnok, Szolnok, Hungary

    ⨯
  • Zsanett Orlovits ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Mária Takács, Zsanett Orlovits, Bence Jáger, Rita M. Kiss

    Roles Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Institute of Mathematics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

    ⨯
  • Bence Jáger ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Mária Takács, Zsanett Orlovits, Bence Jáger, Rita M. Kiss

    Roles Data curation, Software, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Structural Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

    ⨯
  • Rita M. Kiss

    Contributed equally to this work with: Mária Takács, Zsanett Orlovits, Bence Jáger, Rita M. Kiss

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    rikiss@mail.bme.hu

    Affiliation Department of Mechatronics, Optics and Mechanical Engineering Informatics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

    ⨯

Abstract

Background and purpose

The most common and gold standard method to diagnose and follow-up on scoliosis treatment is to capture biplanar X-ray images and then use these to determine the sagittal frontal spinal curvature angles by the Cobb method. Reducing exposure to radiation is an important aspect for consideration, especially regarding children. The ZEBRIS spinal examination method is an external, non-invasive measurement method that uses an ultrasound-based motion analysis system. The aim of this study is to compare angle values of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) determined by the ZEBRIS spine examination method with the angle values defined by the gold standard Cobb method on biplanar X-ray images.

Methods

Subjects included 19 children with AIS (mean age 14.5±2.1 years, range 8–16 years, frontal plane thoracic Cobb angle 19.95±10.23°, thoracolumbar/lumbar angle 16.57±10.23°). The thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis in the sagittal plane and the thoracic and lumbar scoliosis values were calculated by the Cobb method on biplanar X-ray images. The sagittal frontal spinal curvature angles were calculated from the position of the processus spinosus of 19 vertebrae, as determined by the ZEBRIS spine examination method. The validity of the ZEBRIS spine examination method was evaluated with Bland-Altman analyses between the sagittal and frontal spinal curvature parameters calculated from data determined by the ZEBRIS spine examination method and data obtained by the Cobb method on the X-ray images.

Results and discussion

Thoracic spinal curvature angles in sagittal and in frontal planes can be measured with sufficient accuracy. The slopes of the linear regression lines for thoracic kyphosis (TK) and thoracic scoliosis (TSC) are close to one (1.00 and 0.79 respectively), and the intercept values are below 5 degrees. The correlation between the TK and TSC values determined by the two methods is significant (p = 0.000) and excellent (rTK = 0.95, rTSC = 0.85). The differences are in the limit of agreement. The lumbar lordosis (LL) in the sagittal plane shows a very good correlation (rLL = 0.76); however the differences between the angles determined by the two methods are out of the limit of agreement in patients with major lumbar lordosis (LL≥50°). The thoracolumbar/lumbar spinal curvature angles in the frontal plane determined by ZEBRIS spine examination were underestimated at curvatures larger than 15°, mainly due to the rotational and pathological deformities of the scoliotic vertebrae. However, the correlation between lumbar scoliosis (LSC) values determined by the two methods is significant (p = 0.000) and excellent (rLSC = 0.84), the slopes are below one (0.71), the intercept values are below 5 degrees, and the differences between the angles determined by the two methods are within the limits of agreement. We could conclude that ZEBRIS spinal examination is a valid and reliable method for determination of sagittal and frontal curvatures during the treatment of patients with scoliosis. However, it cannot replace the biplanar X-ray examination for the visualization of spinal curvatures in the sagittal and frontal planes and the rotation of vertebral bodies during the diagnosis and annual evaluation of the progression.

Citation: Takács M, Orlovits Z, Jáger B, Kiss RM (2018) Comparison of spinal curvature parameters as determined by the ZEBRIS spine examination method and the Cobb method in children with scoliosis. PLoS ONE 13(7): e0200245. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200245

Editor: Robert Daniel Blank, Medical College of Wisconsin, UNITED STATES

Received: December 17, 2017; Accepted: May 28, 2018; Published: July 9, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Takács et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Data are restricted for ethical concerns. Data are available from the MÁV Hospital Szolnok Institutional Ethics Committee for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. The request must be sent to the Director General of MÁV Hospital Szolnok. (foig@mavkorhaz-szolnok.hu, MÁV Hospital Szolnok, Verseghy street 6-8, 5000 Hungary). It should be noted that the characteristics calculated from the measurement data are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The measurement data (The spatial positions of processus spinoses defined with ZEBRIS spinal examination method) and the digital X-ray images are kept in MÁV Hospital Szolnok (Hungary).

Funding: Name of grant: Orszagos Tudomanyos Kutatasi Alapprogramok Country: HUNGARY Grant number: K115894 URL: http://nyilvanos.otka-palyazat.hu/index.php?menuid=930&num=115894&lang=EN Receiving author: Kiss, Rita M The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

There are several spinal deformities that can develop in childhood, of which, scoliosis is the most common and the most serious. Of 10-16-year-old children, 2 to 4% are suffering from adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) [1]. This new type of classification emphasizes the fact that scoliosis is a complex, three-dimensional deformity and sagittal spinal curvatures play an important role in the stability of the spine [2,3]. The basic components of deformity are thoracic kyphosis (TK) and lumbar lordosis (LL) (sagittal plane), inclinations (frontal and sagittal planes) and axial rotation (transverse plane), i.e., the vertebral bodies rotate towards the convex side and the spinous processes towards the concave side [4,5]. AIS patients were shown to have a distinct asymmetrical intravertebral deformity, with the maximum being in the apical region of the curve [6].

Biplanar X-ray images of the full spine are recommended for the visualization of spinal curvatures in the sagittal and frontal planes and the rotation of vertebral bodies, initially, when the diagnosis is made and then annually to evaluate the progression of the spinal deformities [7,8]. The Cobb method is the most widespread method used for determining the degree of scoliosis in the frontal plane, and the degree of thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis in the sagittal plane [9,10].

To reduce radiation exposure, the use of low-radiation devices has become more common in determining spinal curvatures, such as EOS 2D/3D devices, which are suitable for determining the Cobb angles [11–17]. Follow-up should be regular and frequent for children with scoliosis, which significantly increases their level of radiation exposure. Higher levels of exposure increase the risks of lung cancer, breast cancer and leukaemia in patients with AIS [18,19]. The recommendation by the Society on Scoliosis Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT) in 2014 proposes the use of alternative, non-radiation devices [20]. The flexiruler, the goniometer, the kyphometer, ultrasound-based systems such as the Scoliscan, rasterstereographic systems and the Spinal Mouse (SM) are the best-known non-invasive devices to determine spinal curvatures through the skin [21,22, 23–30, 31–36].

Aroeira et al [37] used computerized photogrammetry with a digital camera to establish the frontal spinal curvature angles. Aroeira et al established via the measurement of 16 young adults with AIS that the average difference between the two methods is 2.9° in the thoracic region and 5.1° in the lumbar region between the frontal angles determined by the gold standard Cobb method on frontal X-ray images and the angles as determined by computerized photogrammetry. The differences are not significant. The test- retest reliability and the accuracy determined by Bland-Altman method are unknown [37].

Schmid et al [38] established via the measurement of 10 children with AIS that skin marker based motion capture techniques can be used for the non-invasive assessment of spinal curvature angles in the sagittal and frontal planes in patients with AIS. However, the accuracy of measurement is influenced by the rotational deformities of the scoliotic vertebrae, and the angles in the frontal plane were systematically underestimated. Schmid et al. [38] found that using radio-opaque markers during radiographic measurements and the thickness of the soft tissue could significantly influence the accuracy of the determination of spinal curvatures.

The previous studies established that the frontal plane spinal curvatures derived from the processus spinosus significantly underestimated the Cobb angle [39], and the malrotation of vertebral bodies might lead to an underestimation of the frontal plane spinal curvature [38,40,41]. However, the motion analysis system is recommended for a comprehensive, non-invasive evaluation of treatment effects [38,40,41].

The ZEBRIS ultrasound-based motion analysis system (ZEBRIS Medizintechnik GmbH, Isny, Germany) is an external non-invasive ultrasonography-based system, which determined the spatial coordinates of the spinosus processus in the local coordinates system and defined three system receivers by triangulation (hereinafter referred to as ZEBRIS spine examination method) [42–46]. The test-retest reliability of the ZEBRIS spine examination method were determined by two independent, experienced examiners in the cases of 23 children with AIS; initial measurements, and those repeated three weeks later, were performed by both examiners. The test-retest reliability of thoracic kyphosis is excellent, with an intraobserver reliability of 0.958, and interobserver reliability of 0.948. The test-retest reliability of lumbar lordosis is very good, with intraobserver reliability of 0.814, interobserver reliability of 0.793 [47].

To our knowledge, regarding patients with AIS, the angle values determined by the ZEBRIS spine examination method have never been compared with the angle values defined by the gold standard Cobb method on biplanar X-ray images. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the static validity of the ZEBRIS spine examination method in the determination of spinal curvatures in the sagittal and frontal planes in patients with AIS using biplanar radiography. In this study, the effect of soft tissue thickness in the lumbar region could not be analysed by radiological methods. Schmid et al. [38] analysed the effect of soft tissue thickness using a radio-opaque marker. We did not have the opportunity to carry out such examinations in our study, so we assumed that the effect of soft tissue thickness could be modelled using the BMI. The effect of soft tissue thickness could be modelled by the Pearson correlation coefficient between the body mass index (BMI) specifically determined for children [48,49] and the difference between the angular values determined by the two methods. Our hypothesis is the following: the sagittal plane spinal curvatures determined by the Cobb method in biplanar radiological measurements, and those defined by the ZEBRIS spine examination method do not differ significantly; the frontal plane spinal curvatures are underestimated; however, the correlation between these values is at least good.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

The research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of MÁV Hospital in Szolnok (number: FI/5-93/2007). Every participant and their parents had received detailed oral and written information before they signed their informed consent.

Subjects

Thirty-seven patients at MÁV Hospital with diagnosed AIS were scheduled for a routine orthopaedic examination by radiography in September 2016 in the Orthopaedic Department. Inclusion criteria for participation in the present study were the diagnosis of AIS (types 1 and 3 according to Lenke’s classification) [6], and age between 8–16 years. Exclusion criteria were inequalities or congenital abnormalities (spina bifida, hemivertebra, etc.), spinal curvature deformities other than those due to idiopathic scoliosis, and previous surgical interventions on the spine. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 19 patients with AIS (17 females, 2 males) were included from the initial pool of 37 patients (Table 1). Mean age was 14.5±2.1 years (range: 8–16 years), mean body mass was 50.5±10.6 kg (range: 30–67 kg) and mean height was 165.4±11.1 cm (range: 140–182 cm). BMI was calculated using two methods: the conventional method (body mass divided by height squared) (18.27±2.37 kg/m2, range 14.60–23.70 kg/m2), and according to the recommendations of Ogden [48,49] (34.68±20.71%, range: 5–80%) (Table 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Subject demographics data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200245.t001

Radiological measurements

Standard biplanar (posterior-anterior and lateral) radiographic examinations of the full spine were taken by a digital X-ray (Siemens Luminous Fusion Digital X-ray 2015/31030):

  • Posterior-anterior (PA) X-ray beams were used for frontal full spine X-ray images [20]. Children were asked to stay in a natural straight standing position and to keep their arms loosely at the sides of the trunk (Fig 1A) (Hereinafter referred to as standing position with lowered arms).
thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Standing positions.

A: standing position with lowered arms: a natural standing position with the arms lowered loosely at the sides of the trunk. B: standing position with raised arms: a natural standing position with the arms raised to 45° in the sagittal plane and with hands grabbing the opposite side elbows.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200245.g001

  • From left to right, lateral X-ray beams were used for sagittal full spine X-ray images. Previous studies [50–55] have proved that the evaluation of the images is the most difficult and most inaccurate when the arms are positioned at the sides of the trunk. The results improve when the arms are folded and raised to 45° [52,53]. Accordingly, the patients were asked to stay in a natural standing position, to stretch their knees and hips, to raise their arms to 45° and to grab the opposite side elbows (Fig 1B) (Hereinafter referred to as standing position with raised arms).

ZEBRIS WinSpine measurement

The ZEBRIS spine examination was performed directly after the radiological and orthopaedic examinations. In the case of the ZEBRIS spine examination method the spatial positions of the spinous processes were determined by the ultrasonography-based ZEBRIS CMS-HS motion analysis system (ZEBRIS Medizintechnik GmbH, Isny, Germany)

The transmitters of the head emit ultrasound signals in specified intervals (the measuring frequency is 100 Hz), which travel through the air until the receivers record them. The WinSpine program (ZEBRIS Medizintechnik GmbH, Isny, Germany) records and stores the spatial positions of the receivers numerically. The steps of the examination are shown in Fig 2.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Steps of the measurement.

A: placing the reference marker on the skin of the easily palpable part of the pelvis and marking the acromion, the angulus inferior scapulae, the spina iliaca posterior superior, the thoracic 12 (Th12) and the lumbar 1 (L1) on both sides. B: positioning the subject in front of the measurement head with the back facing it. C: calibration: defining the global coordinate system by marking four points on the ground with the pointer stick. D: determining the positions of the spinous processes with the pointer stick between vertebrae C7-S1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200245.g002

Before the first measurement, subjects were asked to take the standing position with lowered arms (Fig 1A). After the first measurement, the subjects could move freely for some minutes, then they were asked to position themselves in the standing position with raised arms (Fig 1B). The spinous processes were determined on each subject and each measurement was performed by the same physiotherapist with experience in palpation to keep inaccuracies at a minimum.

Measured and calculated parameters

Biplanar X-ray images were processed using the software ImageJ (version 1.54). Cobb angles such as thoracic kyphosis (RTG_TK), lumbar lordosis (RTG_LL) in the sagittal plane, thoracic curvature (RTG_TSC) and thoracolumbar/lumbar curvatures (RTG_LSC) in the frontal plane were determined as described in the literature [56]. The test-retest reliability of the determination of Cobb angles with software on X-rays had been analysed by several researchers [57–59]. Based on the results of these studies, interobserver reliability was between 0.75–0.98 and intraobserver reliability was between 0.71–0.98, which are both excellent [57–59]. The accuracy of the method is adequate to determine the sagittal and frontal curvatures of the spine and to follow the changes during treatment or progression[57–59].

The positions of 19 processus spinosus (from C7 to S1) were determined by the ZEBRIS spine examination method. A custom MATLAB-based program (version 2016R, MathWorks, Inc, Natich, MA, USA) fitted a curve on the 19 points by the spline method in both the sagittal and frontal planes. In the sagittal plane, the degree of thoracic kyphosis (ZEBRIS_TK) is the angle between the tangential lines over the processus spinosus of Th1 and Th12; the degree of lumbar lordosis (ZEBRIS_LL) is the angle between the tangential lines over the processus spinosus of Th12 and L5. In the frontal plane, the angle of thoracic and thoracolumbar/lumbar curvatures was defined by the angle of tangential lines over processus spinosus corresponding to the Cobb-angle boundaries (Table 2) as suggested by Schmid et al [38]. The test-retest reliability (ICC) of the ZEBRIS spine examination in cases of children with AIS range from 0.793 to 0.958, which is excellent or very good [47].

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Subject spinal curvature parameters determined by the Cobb method on biplanar X-ray images and by ZEBRIS spinal examination.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200245.t002

Statistical analysis

The power analysis on the sample size was performed using G*Power (v3.1.9.2) free software (Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany) [60]. The power of a test is the probability of rejecting the null-hypothesis (getting a significant result) when the real difference is equal to the minimum effect size. If the power value is greater than 0.50, the sample size is appropriate [60].

The basic statistical features such as the mean, standard deviation (SD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined both in the angle values determined by the ZEBRIS spine examination method (ZEBRIS_TK, ZEBRIS_LL, ZEBRIS_TSC, ZEBRIS_LSC) and in the angle values determined by the Cobb method on X-ray images (RTG_TK, RTG_LL, RTG_TSC, RTG_LSC). Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS software (ver. 24, IBM corporation) with the level of significance set at α = 0.05.

The systematic method of comparing the sagittal and frontal spinal curves determined by the non-invasive spine measurement method and by the Cobb method on X-ray images is considered the gold standard. Schmid et al. [38] performed a comparison with linear regression only. In the present study, the validity of the ZEBRIS spine examination method was analysed with Bland-Altman analyses between the sagittal and frontal spinal curvature parameters calculated from data determined by the ZEBRIS spine examination method (ZEBRIS_TK, ZEBRIS_LL, ZEBRIS_TSC, ZEBRIS_LSC) and data obtained by the Cobb method on X-ray images (RTG_TK, RTG_LL, RTG_TSC, RTG_LSC) [61]. We used the complete Bland-Altman method: in addition to the parameters of linear regression (Pearson r-value squared, slope of regression line, intercept), we calculated the parameters of the Bland-Altman method such as the mean, limit of agreement and 95% CI of bias and plotted the Bland-Altmann diagram with the following parameters: sum of squared error, reproducibility coefficient and values of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test [61].

In the present study, it was not possible to examine the effect of soft tissue thickness with the radio-opaque method and to measure the soft tissue thickness with a calliper. BMI index can be calculated from the available anthropometric data (Table 1), from which index BMI% can also be calculated using the percentile table. The percentile table shows what percent (BMI%) of children of the same gender and age have a lower BMI than the measured subject. The 50th percentile is the average body mass index [48,49]. According to the literature [48,49], there is a linear relationship between the percentile table value and the soft tissue thickness, thus, for modelling the effect of soft tissue thickness, the Pearson correlation between the BMI percentile (BMI%) [48,49] and the absolute difference between spinal curvature angles determined by the two measurement methods was calculated. Validity coefficients were defined as follows: 0.81≤r≤1 excellent, 0.61≤r≤0.80 very good, 0.41≤r≤0.60 good, 0.21≤r≤0.40 fair, 0.00≤r≤0.20 poor [61].

Results

The power of the sample size is 0.79, indicating that the sample size is large enough to detect significant differences between the two methods [60].

The anthropometric data (Table 1), the frontal and sagittal plane angle values calculated with the two methods (RTG_TK, RTG_LL, RTG_TSC, RTG_LSC, ZEBRIS_TK, ZEBRIS_LL, ZEBRIS_TSC, ZEBRIS_LSC) and the differences between these two sets of values (Table 2) are given for each subject. The means, standard deviation and 95% CI values of TK, LL, TSC and LSC as determined by the two methods were also given in (Table 3). Significant bias (difference) is shown for TK (-2.6°, p = 0.02) and for LSC (3.2°, p = 0.02); however, bias for LL (2.5°, p = 0.16) and TSC (3.0°, p = 0.05) is not significant (Table 4). The limit of agreement for differences calculated by the standard deviation of differences is much wider (greater than 17°) than the 95% confidence interval calculated from the standard error of differences (less than 7.2°) (Table 4).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Means, standard deviations and 95% CIs of compared parameters.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200245.t003

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Results of Bland-Altman analysis on spinal curvature angles.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200245.t004

The results of Bland Altman analysis are plotted separately for each of the spinal curvature angles in the sagittal (TK, LL) (Fig 3) and frontal planes (TSC, LSC) (Fig 4). The linear regression for TK draws the line of equality, with a slope of 1.00 and the intercepts are below 5 degrees (Table 4). The correlation between the TK values determined by the two methods is significant (p = 0.000) and excellent (rTK = 0.95) (Fig 3A). However, the intercept value of the fitted line for the parameter LL is significantly nonzero (1.27°, p = 0.002), the slope is below one (0.97, p = 0.000) (Table 4) and the correlation is very good (rLL = 0.76) (Fig 3B). The linear regression for TSC and LSC shows that the slopes are below one (0.79 and 0.71, respectively) and the intercept values are below 5 degrees (Table 4). The correlation between the TSC and LSC values determined by the two methods is significant (p = 0.000) and excellent (rTSC = 0.85, rLSC = 0.84) (Fig 4). One data point (5.2%) at high LL values (RTG_LL = 54.69°, ZEBRIS_LL = 67.92°) is out of the limit of agreement (12.0; -17.0) (Fig 4B). All the data for TK, TSC and LSC are within the limit of agreement. (Figs 3A and 4). Reproducibility, which refers to the variation in measurements made on a subject due to different measuring methods [61], is under 14° (Figs 3 and 4).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Bland-Altman plots of spinal curvature angles in the sagittal plane comparing the results of the two measurement systems.

a: sagittal thoracic spinal curvature angle (TK), b: sagittal lumbar spinal curvature angle (LL). Comments: SSE—sum of squared error; r2—Pearson r-value squared; RPC (%)—reproducibility coefficient and % of values; ks—Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality of differences, all values are higher than 0.05 and the distribution is Gaussian.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200245.g003

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. Bland-Altman plots of spinal curvature angles in the frontal plane comparing the results of the two measurement systems.

a: frontal thoracic spinal curvature angle (TSC), b: frontal thoracolumbar/lumbar spinal curvature angle. Comments: SSE—sum of squared error; r2—Pearson r-value squared; RPC (%)—reproducibility coefficient and % of values; ks—Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality of differences, all values are higher than 0.05 and the distribution is Gaussian.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200245.g004

Pearson correlation coefficients between the percentile body mass index of children [48][49] (Table 1) and of the absolute difference between the sagittal thoracic and both frontal spine curvatures determined by the two measurement methods (Table 2) are below 0.25 (rTK = -0.07 pTK = 0.02; rTSC = 0.25 pTSC = 0.01, rLSC = 0.16, pLSC = 0.03), which means the correlation is poor to fair. However, in the case of the sagittal lumbar angle the correlation is good (rLL = 0.56, pLL = 0.04).

Discussion

Using biplanar radiographical and ZEBRIS spine examination, the aim of this study is to evaluate the static validity of the ZEBRIS spine examination method in the determination of spinal curvatures in the sagittal and frontal planes in patients with AIS. Sagittal and frontal angles could be estimated with reasonable accuracy by the ZEBRIS spine examination, whereas thoracolumbar/lumbar curvature angles were systematically underestimated. The present study has the novelty of the validation of sagittal and frontal angle values by the ZEBRIS spine examination method with angle values determined by the gold standard Cobb method on X-ray images. The validity was analysed by Bland-Altman analyses [61].

There are only a few studies that have evaluated the marker-based motion analysis system for the estimation of spinal curvatures in the sagittal plane using radiography in healthy subjects and these used regression analysis only [62–65]. There is only one study that evaluated the marker-based motion analysis system for the estimation of spinal curvatures in the sagittal and frontal planes [38]; however, they also used regression analysis only. A comparison of this previous [38] and our present study is summarized in Table 5. In the previous study [38], the positions of the processus spinosus of 11 vertebrae are determined from reflective markers attached to the skin over the processus spinosus by a VICON motion analysis system. In the present study, the positions of the processus spinosus of 19 vertebrae are determined from the position of a pointer stick pointed at the skin over the processus spinosus by the ZEBRIS ultrasound-based motion analysis system.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 5. Comparison of subjects, methods, data and spinal curvature angles of present and previous research.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200245.t005

Based on the Bland-Altman analysis, it can also be stated that the measurement results have a normal distribution.

Let’s analyse the sagittal spinal curvature (TK and LL) first. The results of the regression analysis of both studies are similar (Table 5), which supports our main findings: the correlations between the sagittal curvature angles range (rTK = 0.95; rLL = 0.76;) are excellent and very good. (Table 4). The correlation is similar to those of previous studies in healthy subjects [62–65] as well. Our results supported the results of a previous study [38]: sagittal lumbar spinal curvatures derived from the processus spinosus compared to angles derived by the Cobb-method are underestimated. This is confirmed by the negative sign of the bias (-2.5° with 95% confidence interval, range 1.1° to -6.1°) (Table 4); the value determined with the Cobb method is greater than the angles derived from the processus spinosus. The results of Bland-Altman analysis (Fig 3) showed that the accuracy of the estimation of sagittal lumbar curvature angles was worse (95% confidence interval and limit of agreement are wider) than that of thoracic curvature angles. This is shown clearly by the fact that the RPC value of angle LL is below 14° (Fig 3B). These findings are in agreement with the results of the validation of the Spinal Mouse [36] and of the skin marker based method [38]. The Bland-Altman diagram of LL (Fig 3B) shows that the differences at over 50 degrees of sagittal lumbar curvature angle are increased, which is in agreement with the results of previous studies [36,38]. Previous studies [43,44] have analysed the test-retest reliability of the ZEBRIS spine examination method and found that the level of reliability of the TK angle is higher than that of the LL angle and that there is very good reliability in thoracic angles and good reliability in lumbar angles. The analysis of test-retest reliability of the ZEBRIS spine examination method in children with AIS shows that interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities of lumbar lordosis are very good, and interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities of thoracic kyphosis are excellent [47]. The smallest correlation (r = 0.76) was found in LL angles determined with the two examination methods. Previous studies [62–65] found that the reliability of TK is better than the reliability of LL. Schmid et al. [38] clearly regarded the thicker soft tissue present in the lumbar region as the reason for this, based on comparisons made with measurements using radio-opaque markers. According to data found in the literature [38–41,43,44,62–65] the paravertebral muscles in the lumbar section are always more emerged than in the thoracic section. Lumbar fat tissue could be a reason why the determination of the positions of the deeper bony formulations are more inaccurate. Our measurements can support this hypothesis only indirectly: the correlation between the percent of body mass index and the difference between the LL values determined with the two methods is only good (r = 0.56). This indicates that the palpation of the processus spinosus of the lumbar region requires more attention in children with a higher body mass index.

Let’s now analyse the frontal spinal curvature (TSC and LSC). The present study shows that the correlation of the frontal thoracolumbar/lumbar curvature angles is excellent (rLSC = 0.85) (Table 4). The bias of the frontal thoracolumbar/lumbar curvature angles was -3.2° with a 95% confidence interval of 0.5° to -6.0° (Table 4), which is smaller than the error determined with computerized photogrammetry by Aroeira et al. [37] (5.1°). The frontal thoracolumbar/lumbar curvature angles derived from the processus spinosus tends to give lower values compared to the values as determined by the Cobb method (Fig 4A), which is indicated by the negative sign of the bias (Table 4). The reasons for such clear underestimation can include some deformations developing in the vertebrae over time [66] and the rotational deformities in AIS patients (i.e., axial rotation and intrinsic axial torsional deformity of the vertebrae)[38]. The correlation of the frontal thoracic curvature angles was excellent (rLSC = 0.85) (Table 4). The bias was 3.0° with a 95% confidence interval of 0.0° to -6.0°, which agrees with the error (2.9) determined with computerized photogrammetry by Aroeira et al [37]. The frontal thoracic curvature angles derived from the processus spinosus tend to give lower values compared to the angles determined by the Cobb method (Fig 4A). Similar to the lumbar section, this is due to the deformations developing in the vertebrae [66] and to the rotational deformities in AIS patients [38].

One advantage compared to the computerized photogrammetry method using a cheap digital camera by Aroeira et al [37], is that it can measure sagittal angles along with the frontal curvature angles with a single measurement. The bias of the frontal thoracolumbar/lumbar curvature angles (3.2°) is significantly lower than in the case of a computerized photogrammetry method (5.1°). Aroeira et al [37] also found that the main drawback of the photographic method is that the average duration of the measurement (positioning, surface marking, photographic exposure and one curve measurement) is 28 minutes, while the average duration of the ZEBRIS spine examination (positioning, palpation of the anatomical points and processus spinosus and one curve measurement) is 17 minutes. The repetition accuracy of the method described in the article by Aroeira et al [37] is unknown and only the differences between the angular values determined with the two methods are known, while other factors affecting accuracy are not.

Based on the Bland-Altman analysis results, the utility of the ZEBRIS spine examination method for a comprehensive evaluation of treatment effects as a non-invasive method could be recommended. The adequacy of the method for the follow-up of patients with AIS is confirmed not only by the small deviation (≤3.5°) from the sagittal and frontal curvatures determined with the gold standard method on X-rays but also by the high or excellent test-retest reliability (ICC≥0.793) determined on AIS patients [47]. During the examination of scoliosis, attention has to be paid to the distortion of the sagittal plane curvatures, which can be manifested primarily in the flattening of the thoracic kyphosis [7] and could be a sign of progression [8]. The flattening of the thoracic kyphosis in the sagittal plane as the secondary sign of progression could be suitable for accurately assessing the progression of scoliosis because of the excellent test-retest reliability [47] and low bias (2.6°), as well as the excellent correlation (r = 0.95), which ensures the accuracy of the TK values.

The present study has some limitations: the validation process was performed on the same day; however, measurements were not performed simultaneously; the pointing accuracy for processus spinosus by the pointer was not investigated; the underestimation of spinal curvature in the frontal plane suggests that it might be possible to perform a systematic correction of the angle values determined by the ZEBRIS spine measurement method on a larger sample size in the future.

Conclusions

This study fills a gap in the literature because it validates the ZEBRIS spine examination method with the sagittal and frontal spinal curvature angles determined by the gold standard Cobb method on X-ray images in patients with AIS. The thoracic and lumbar spinal curvature angles in the sagittal plane were measured with reasonable accuracy. The thoracolumbar/lumbar spinal curvature angles in the frontal plane were systematically underestimated, mainly due to the rotational and pathological deformities of the scoliotic vertebrae.

ZEBRIS spinal examination cannot replace the biplanar X-ray examination for the visualization of spinal curvatures in the sagittal and frontal planes and the rotation of vertebral bodies during the diagnosis and annual evaluation of progression. Practice recommendations state that taking X-ray images is allowed only once per year [20]. However, the ZEBRIS spine examination method could be used for follow-ups several times a year, e.g., examining the effectiveness of various therapies, thus reducing the radiation exposure to patients. Between the two biplanar radiological examinations, the numerical results provided by ZEBRIS non-invasive spinal examination equipment can provide an objective view of the spine curvature during standing and indirectly about the effectiveness of therapy.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to physiotherapists Ildikó Nagy and Gábor Szabó for their valuable work in the biomechanical measurements as well as to Ervin Rudner, MD; György Mike, PhD; and Mihály Nagy, MD, for their selfless clinical practice assistance. Special thanks go to Gergely Nagymáté and Bálint Petró for their help in formatting the manuscript.

References

  1. 1. Reamy B V, Slakey JB. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: review and current concepts. Am Fam Physician. 2001;64: 111–6. pmid:11456428
  2. 2. King HA, Moe JH, Bradford DS, Winter RB. The selection of fusion levels in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65: 1302–13. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6654943 pmid:6654943
  3. 3. Rigo M. Patient evaluation in idiopathic scoliosis: Radiographic assessment, trunk deformity and back asymmetry. Physiother Theory Pract. 2011;27: 7–25. pmid:21198403
  4. 4. Hong J-Y, Suh S-W, TR E, Hong SJ, Yoon Y-C, Kang H-J. Clinical anatomy of vertebrae in scoliosis: global analysis in four different diseases by multiplanar reconstructive computed tomography. Spine J. 2013;13: 1510–1520. pmid:23992938
  5. 5. Liljenqvist UR, Allkemper T, Hackenberg L, Link TM, Steinbeck J, Halm HFH. Analysis of vertebral morphology in idiopathic scoliosis with use of magnetic resonance imaging and multiplanar reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84–A: 359–68. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11886904 pmid:11886904
  6. 6. Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J, Bridwell KH, Clements DH, Lowe TG, et al. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg—Ser A. 2001;83: 1169–1181.
  7. 7. Negrini S, Aulisa AG, Aulisa L, Circo AB, de Mauroy JC, Durmala J, et al. 2011 SOSORT guidelines: Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth. Scoliosis. 2012;7: 3. pmid:22264320
  8. 8. Janssen MMA, Vincken KL, Van Raak SM, Vrtovec T, Kemp B, Viergever MA, et al. Sagittal spinal profile and spinopelvic balance in parents of scoliotic children. Spine J. 2013;13: 1789–1800. pmid:23819971
  9. 9. Mac-Thiong JM, Labelle H, Charlebois M, Huot MP, De Guise JA. Sagittal plane analysis of the spine and pelvis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis according to the coronal curve type. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28: 1404–1409.
  10. 10. Vrtovec T, Janssen MMA, Likar B, Castelein RM, Viergever MA, Pernuš F. A review of methods for evaluating the quantitative parameters of sagittal pelvic alignment. Spine J. 2012;12: 433–446. pmid:22480531
  11. 11. Delorme S, Petit Y, de Guise JA, Labelle H, Aubin CE, Dansereau J. Assessment of the 3-d reconstruction and high-resolution geometrical modeling of the human skeletal trunk from 2-D radiographic images. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2003;50: 989–98. pmid:12892326
  12. 12. Greiner KA. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: radiologic decision-making. Am Fam Physician. 2002;65: 1817–22. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12018804 pmid:12018804
  13. 13. Hattori T, Sakaura H, Iwasaki M, Nagamoto Y, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K. In vivo three-dimensional segmental analysis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2011;20: 1745–1750. pmid:21688001
  14. 14. Illés T, Somoskeöy S. Comparison of scoliosis measurements based on three-dimensional vertebra vectors and conventional two-dimensional measurements: Advantages in evaluation of prognosis and surgical results. Eur Spine J. 2013;22: 1255–1263. pmid:23341044
  15. 15. Morrissy RT, Goldsmith GS, Hall EC, Kehl D, Cowie GH. Measurement of the Cobb angle on radiographs of patients who have scoliosis. Evaluation of intrinsic error. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72: 320–7. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2312527 pmid:2312527
  16. 16. Vidal C, Ilharreborde B, Azoulay R, Sebag G, Mazda K. Reliability of cervical lordosis and global sagittal spinal balance measurements in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J. 2013;22: 1362–1367. pmid:23543370
  17. 17. Goldberg MS, Mayo NE, Levy AR, Scott SC, Poîtras B. Adverse reproductive outcomes among women exposed to low levels of ionizing radiation from diagnostic radiography for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Epidemiology. 1998;9: 271–8. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9583418 pmid:9583418
  18. 18. Doody MM, Lonstein JE, Stovall M, Hacker DG, Luckyanov N, Land CE. Breast cancer mortality after diagnostic radiography: findings from the U.S. Scoliosis Cohort Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25: 2052–63. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10954636
  19. 19. Levy AR, Goldberg MS, Mayo NE, Hanley JA, Poitras B. Reducing the lifetime risk of cancer from spinal radiographs among people with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21: 1540–7; discussion 1548. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8817782
  20. 20. Knott P, Pappo E, Cameron M, DeMauroy JC, Rivard C, Kotwicki T, et al. SOSORT 2012 consensus paper: Reducing x-ray exposure in pediatric patients with scoliosis. Scoliosis. 2014;9: 1–9.
  21. 21. Pearcy M. Measurement of back and spinal mobility. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1986;1: 44–51.
  22. 22. Salisbury PJ, Porter RW. Measurement of lumbar sagittal mobility. A comparison of methods. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987;12: 190–3. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3296235
  23. 23. Stokes IA, Bevins TM, Lunn RA. Back surface curvature and measurement of lumbar spinal motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987;12: 355–61. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3616750
  24. 24. Zheng Y-P, Lee TT-Y, Lai KK-L, Yip BH-K, Zhou G-Q, Jiang W-W, et al. A reliability and validity study for Scolioscan: a radiation-free scoliosis assessment system using 3D ultrasound imaging. Scoliosis Spinal Disord. Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders; 2016;11: 13. pmid:27299162
  25. 25. Berton F, Cheriet F, Miron M-C, Laporte C. Segmentation of the spinous process and its acoustic shadow in vertebral ultrasound images. Comput Biol Med. 2016;72: 201–11. pmid:27054831
  26. 26. Zheng R, Young M, Hill D, Le LH, Hedden D, Moreau M, et al. Improvement on the Accuracy and Reliability of Ultrasound Coronal Curvature Measurement on Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis With the Aid of Previous Radiographs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41: 404–11. pmid:26926163
  27. 27. Wang Q, Li M, Lou EHM, Wong MS. Reliability and Validity Study of Clinical Ultrasound Imaging on Lateral Curvature of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0135264. pmid:26266802
  28. 28. Theologis TN, Fairbank JC, Turner-Smith AR, Pantazopoulos T. Early detection of progression in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by measurement of changes in back shape with the Integrated Shape Imaging System scanner. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22: 1223–7; discussion 1228. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9201860
  29. 29. Drerup B, Hierholzer E. Assessment of scoliotic deformity from back shape asymmetry using an improved mathematical model. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1996;11: 376–383. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11415649
  30. 30. Hackenberg L, Hierholzer E. 3-D back surface analysis of severe idiopathic scoliosis by rasterstereography: comparison of rasterstereographic and digitized radiometric data. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2002;88: 86–9. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15456008 pmid:15456008
  31. 31. Drerup B. Rasterstereographic measurement of scoliotic deformity. Scoliosis. 2014;9: 1–14.
  32. 32. Dolphens M, Cagnie B, Coorevits P, Vanderstraeten G, Cardon G, D’Hooge R, et al. Sagittal standing posture and its association with spinal pain: A school-based epidemiological study of 1196 flemish adolescents before age at peak height velocity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37: 1657–1666. pmid:22108378
  33. 33. Ripani M, Di Cesare A, Giombini A, Agnello L, Fagnani F, Pigozzi F. Spinal curvature: comparison of frontal measurements with the Spinal Mouse and radiographic assessment. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2008;48: 488–94. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18997653 pmid:18997653
  34. 34. Mannion AF, Knecht K, Balaban G, Dvorak J, Grob D. A new skin-surface device for measuring the curvature and global and segmental ranges of motion of the spine: Reliability of measurements and comparison with data reviewed from the literature. Eur Spine J. 2004;13: 122–136. pmid:14661104
  35. 35. Kellis E, Adamou G, Tzilios G, Emmanouilidou M. Reliability of Spinal Range of Motion in Healthy Boys Using a Skin-Surface Device. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31: 570–576. pmid:18984239
  36. 36. Livanelioglu A, Kaya F, Nabiyev V, Demirkiran G, Fırat T. The validity and reliability of “Spinal Mouse” assessment of spinal curvatures in the frontal plane in pediatric adolescent idiopathic thoraco-lumbar curves. Eur Spine J. 2016;25: 476–482. pmid:25900295
  37. 37. Aroeira RMC, Leal JS, de Melo Pertence AE. New method of scoliosis assessment: preliminary results using computerized photogrammetry. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36: 1584–91. pmid:21245778
  38. 38. Schmid S, Studer D, Hasler CC, Romkes J, Taylor WR, Brunner R, et al. Using skin markers for spinal curvature quantification in main thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: An explorative radiographic study. PLoS One. 2015;10: 1–12. pmid:26270557
  39. 39. Herzenberg JE, Waanders NA, Closkey RF, Schultz AB, Hensinger RN. Cobb angle versus spinous process angle in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. The relationship of the anterior and posterior deformities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990;15: 874–9. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2259973
  40. 40. Harlick JC, Milosavljevic S, Milburn PD. Palpation identification of spinous processes in the lumbar spine. Man Ther. 2007;12: 56–62. pmid:16781182
  41. 41. Snider KT, Snider EJ, Degenhardt BF, Johnson JC, Kribs JW. Palpatory accuracy of lumbar spinous processes using multiple bony landmarks. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2011;34: 306–13. pmid:21640254
  42. 42. Dvir Z, Prushansky T. Reproducibility and instrument validity of a new ultrasonography-based system for measuring cervical spine kinematics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2000;15: 658–64. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10946098
  43. 43. Fölsch C, Schlögel S, Lakemeier S, Wolf U, Timmesfeld N, Skwara A. Test-Retest Reliability of 3D Ultrasound Measurements of the Thoracic Spine. PM R. Elsevier Inc.; 2012;4: 335–341. pmid:22464951
  44. 44. Geldhof E, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Danneels L, Coorevits P, Vanderstraeten G, et al. Effects of back posture education on elementary schoolchildren’s back function. Eur Spine J. 2007;16: 829–839. pmid:16944227
  45. 45. Geldhof E, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, De Clercq D. Back posture education in elementary schoolchildren: A 2-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J. 2007;16: 841–850. pmid:17013655
  46. 46. Zsidai A, Kocsis L. Ultrasound based measuring diagnostic and muscle activity measuring system for spinal analysis. Technol Heal Care. 2006;14: 243–50.
  47. 47. Takács M, Rudner E, Kovács A, Orlovits Z, Kiss RM. The assessment of the spinal curvatures in the sagittal plane of children using an ultrasound-based motion analysing system. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015;43: 348–62. pmid:25338306
  48. 48. Ogden CL, Kuczmarski RJ, Flegal KM, Mei Z, Guo S, Wei R, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts for the United States: improvements to the 1977 National Center for Health Statistics version. Pediatrics. 2002;109: 45–60. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11773541 pmid:11773541
  49. 49. Ogden CL, Flegal KM. Changes in terminology for childhood overweight and obesity. Natl Health Stat Report. 2010; 1–5.
  50. 50. Aota Y, Saito T, Uesugi M, Ishida K, Shinoda K, Mizuma K. Does the fists-on-clavicles position represent a functional standing position? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34: 808–12. pmid:19365249
  51. 51. Aota Y, Saito T, Uesugi M, Kato S, Kuniya H, Koh R. Optimal arm position for evaluation of spinal sagittal balance. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24: 105–109. pmid:21445023
  52. 52. Faro FD, Marks MC, Pawelek J, Newton PO. Evaluation of a functional position for lateral radiograph acquisition in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29: 2284–2289.
  53. 53. Somoskeöy S, Tunyogi-Csapó M, Bogyó C, Illés 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: 1052–1059. pmid:23102842
  54. 54. Steffen JS, Obeid I, Aurouer N, Hauger O, Vital JM, Dubousset J, et al. 3D postural balance with regard to gravity line: An evaluation in the transversal plane on 93 patients and 23 asymptomatic volunteers. Eur Spine J. 2010;19: 760–767. pmid:20035359
  55. 55. Zaina F, Pizzetti P, Donzelli S, Negrini F, Negrini S. Why X-rays are not reliable to assess sagittal profile: a cross sectional study. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;176: 268–72. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22744506 pmid:22744506
  56. 56. Studer D. Clinical investigation and imaging. J Child Orthop. 2013;7: 29–35. pmid:24432056
  57. 57. Wu W, Liang J, Du Y, Tan X, Xiang X, Wang W, et al. Reliability and reproducibility analysis of the Cobb angle and assessing sagittal plane by computer-assisted and manual measurement tools. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15. pmid:24502397
  58. 58. Gstoettner M, Sekyra K, Walochnik N, Winter P, Wachter R, Bach CM. Inter- and intraobserver reliability assessment of the Cobb angle: Manual versus digital measurement tools. Eur Spine J. 2007;16: 1587–1592. pmid:17549526
  59. 59. Modi HN, Chen T, Suh SW, Mehta S, Srinivasalu S, Yang JH, et al. Observer reliability between juvenile and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in measurement of stable Cobb’s angle. Eur Spine J. 2009;18: 52–58. pmid:19037669
  60. 60. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41: 1149–60. pmid:19897823
  61. 61. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet (London, England). 1986;1: 307–10. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2868172
  62. 62. Zemp R, List R, Gülay T, Elsig JP, Naxera J, Taylor WR, et al. Soft tissue artefacts of the human back: Comparison of the sagittal curvature of the spine measured using skin markers and an open upright MRI. PLoS One. 2014;9: 1–8. pmid:24748013
  63. 63. Bryant JT, Reid JG, Smith BL, Stevenson JM. Method for determining vertebral body positions in the sagittal plane using skin markers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989;14: 258–65. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2711241
  64. 64. Hashemirad F, Hatef B, Jaberzadeh S, Ale Agha N. Validity and reliability of skin markers for measurement of intersegmental mobility at L2-3 and L3-4 during lateral bending in healthy individuals: a fluoroscopy study. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2013;17: 46–52. pmid:23294683
  65. 65. Mörl F, Blickhan R. Three-dimensional relation of skin markers to lumbar vertebrae of healthy subjects in different postures measured by open MRI. Eur Spine J. 2006;15: 742–751. pmid:16047207
  66. 66. Parent S, Labelle H, Skalli W, Latimer B, de Guise J. Morphometric analysis of anatomic scoliotic specimens. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27: 2305–11. pmid:12438977