Comparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motion
Abstract The assessment of spinal shape and mobility is of great importance for long-term therapy evaluation. As frequent radiation should be avoided, especially in children, non-invasive measurements have gained increasing importance. Their comparability between each other however stays elusive. Th...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2022-06-01
|
| Series: | Scientific Reports |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13891-x |
| _version_ | 1828326061617709056 |
|---|---|
| author | Bettina Dreischarf Esther Koch Marcel Dreischarf Hendrik Schmidt Matthias Pumberger Luis Becker |
| author_facet | Bettina Dreischarf Esther Koch Marcel Dreischarf Hendrik Schmidt Matthias Pumberger Luis Becker |
| author_sort | Bettina Dreischarf |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract The assessment of spinal shape and mobility is of great importance for long-term therapy evaluation. As frequent radiation should be avoided, especially in children, non-invasive measurements have gained increasing importance. Their comparability between each other however stays elusive. Three non-invasive measurement tools have been compared to each other: Idiag M360, raster stereography and Epionics SPINE. 30 volunteers (15 females/15 males) have each been assessed by each system, investigating lumbar lordosis, thoracic kyphosis and spinal range-of-motion in the sagittal plane. Lumbar lordosis differed significantly (p < 0.001) between measurement devices but correlated significant to each other (Pearson’s r 0.5–0.6). Regarding thoracic kyphosis no significant difference and a high correlation (r = 0.8) could be shown between Idiag M360 and raster stereography. For lumbar mobility resulting measurements differed significantly and correlated only moderate between Idiag M360 and Epionics SPINE. Although the different measurement systems are moderate to high correlated to each other, their absolute agreement is limited. This might be explained by differences in their angle definition for lordotic and kyphotic angle, their measurement placement, or their capturing of mobility (static vs. dynamic assessment). Therefore, for long-term evaluation of the back profile, inter-modal comparison of values between different non-invasive devices should be avoided. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T19:33:10Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-3e6c8ecb2b5944d7b8baf53373923874 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-2322 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T19:33:10Z |
| publishDate | 2022-06-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scientific Reports |
| spelling | doaj.art-3e6c8ecb2b5944d7b8baf533739238742022-12-22T02:33:07ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222022-06-011211910.1038/s41598-022-13891-xComparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motionBettina Dreischarf0Esther Koch1Marcel Dreischarf2Hendrik Schmidt3Matthias Pumberger4Luis Becker5Berlin Institute of Health, Julius Wolff Institute for Biomechanics and Musculoskeletal Regeneration, Charité-Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlin Institute of Health, Julius Wolff Institute for Biomechanics and Musculoskeletal Regeneration, Charité-Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlin Institute of Health, Julius Wolff Institute for Biomechanics and Musculoskeletal Regeneration, Charité-Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlin Institute of Health, Julius Wolff Institute for Biomechanics and Musculoskeletal Regeneration, Charité-Universitätsmedizin BerlinCenter for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité-University Medicine BerlinBerlin Institute of Health, Julius Wolff Institute for Biomechanics and Musculoskeletal Regeneration, Charité-Universitätsmedizin BerlinAbstract The assessment of spinal shape and mobility is of great importance for long-term therapy evaluation. As frequent radiation should be avoided, especially in children, non-invasive measurements have gained increasing importance. Their comparability between each other however stays elusive. Three non-invasive measurement tools have been compared to each other: Idiag M360, raster stereography and Epionics SPINE. 30 volunteers (15 females/15 males) have each been assessed by each system, investigating lumbar lordosis, thoracic kyphosis and spinal range-of-motion in the sagittal plane. Lumbar lordosis differed significantly (p < 0.001) between measurement devices but correlated significant to each other (Pearson’s r 0.5–0.6). Regarding thoracic kyphosis no significant difference and a high correlation (r = 0.8) could be shown between Idiag M360 and raster stereography. For lumbar mobility resulting measurements differed significantly and correlated only moderate between Idiag M360 and Epionics SPINE. Although the different measurement systems are moderate to high correlated to each other, their absolute agreement is limited. This might be explained by differences in their angle definition for lordotic and kyphotic angle, their measurement placement, or their capturing of mobility (static vs. dynamic assessment). Therefore, for long-term evaluation of the back profile, inter-modal comparison of values between different non-invasive devices should be avoided.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13891-x |
| spellingShingle | Bettina Dreischarf Esther Koch Marcel Dreischarf Hendrik Schmidt Matthias Pumberger Luis Becker Comparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motion Scientific Reports |
| title | Comparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motion |
| title_full | Comparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motion |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motion |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motion |
| title_short | Comparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motion |
| title_sort | comparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motion |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13891-x |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT bettinadreischarf comparisonofthreevalidatedsystemstoanalysespinalshapeandmotion AT estherkoch comparisonofthreevalidatedsystemstoanalysespinalshapeandmotion AT marceldreischarf comparisonofthreevalidatedsystemstoanalysespinalshapeandmotion AT hendrikschmidt comparisonofthreevalidatedsystemstoanalysespinalshapeandmotion AT matthiaspumberger comparisonofthreevalidatedsystemstoanalysespinalshapeandmotion AT luisbecker comparisonofthreevalidatedsystemstoanalysespinalshapeandmotion |