Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지

Kyphotic Angle Measurement Accuracy for Vertebral Osteoporotic Compression Fracture; Reliable Method for Kyphotic Angle Measurement

  • Hong, Jae-Taek (Department of Neurosurgery, St. Vincent Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Won (Department of Neurosurgery, St. Vincent Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Son, Byung-Chul (Department of Neurosurgery, St. Vincent Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Sung, Jae-Hoon (Department of Neurosurgery, St. Vincent Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Park, Choon-Keun (Department of Neurosurgery, Leon Wiltse Memorial Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Moon-Chan (Department of Neurosurgery, Kangnam St. Marys' Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Published : 2006.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : Having a reliable and reproducible measurement technique to measure the sagittal contour in vertebral fractures is paramount to clinical decision making. This study is designed to determine the most reliable measurement technique in osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Methods : Fifteen lateral radiographs of thoracic and lumbar fractures were selected and measured on two separate occasions by three spine surgeons using six different measurement techniques [Centroid, Harrison Posterior Tangent Methods and 4 different types of modified Cobb method]. The radiograph quality was assessed and the center beam location was determined. Statistical analysis including ANOVA for repeated measures was carried out using the SAS software [v 8.0]. Results : The inter and intraobserver variance of the Cobb method 4 and Harrison posterior tangent method were significantly lower than the other four methods. The intraobserver correlation coefficients were the most consistent using the Cobb method 4 [0.982]. which was followed by the Harrison posterior tangent [0.953] and Cobb methods 1 [0.874]. The intraobserver agreement [% of repeated measures within 5 degrees of the original measurement] ranged from 42% to 98% for each technique for all three observers, with the Cobb method 4 showing the best agreement [97.8%] followed by the Harrison posterior tangent method [937%]. Conclusion : The Cobb method-4 and Harrison posterior tangent methods, when applied to measuring the kyphosis, are reliable and have a similar small error range. The Cobb method 4 shows the best overall reliability. However, the centroid method and Cobb method using a fractured endplate do not produce an accurate result due to inter and intraobserver differences in determining the baseline.

Keywords

References

  1. Bai B, Jazrawi LM, Kummer FJ, Spivak JM : The use of an injectable, biodegradable calcium phosphate bone substitute for the prophylactic augmentation of osteoporotic vertebrae and the management of vertebral compression fractures. Spine 24: 1521-1526, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199908010-00004
  2. Carman DL, Browne RH, Birch JG : Measurement of scoliosis and kyphosis radiographs. Intraobserver and interobserver variation. J Bone Joint Surg 72A: 328-333, 1990
  3. Cheung J, Wever DJ, Veldhuizen AG, Klein JP, Verdonck B, Nijlunsing R, et al : The reliability of quantitative analysis on digital images of the scoliotic spine. Eur Spine J 11 : 535-542, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-001-0381-7
  4. Harrison DE, Caillier R, Harrison DD, Janik TJ, Holland B : Reliability of centroid, Cobb, and Harrison posterior tangent methods : which to choose for analysis of thoracic kyphosis. Spine 26: E227-234, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200106010-00002
  5. Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Troyanovich SJ, Janik TJ, Holland B : Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method: which to choose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine 25 : 2072-2078. 2000 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200008150-00011
  6. Hoffmann RT, Jakobs TF, Erd-Wagner BB, Wallnofer A, Reiser MF, Helmberger TK : Vertebroplasry in osteoporotic vertebral compression. Radiologe 43 : 729-734, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-003-0951-2
  7. Kim CH, Hwang JK, Kim KH, Lee JH, Song JS : Long term outcome of Vertebroplasty in the Treatment of Osteoporotic Compression Fracture. J Korean Neurosurg Soc Spine Surg 12: 69-74, 2005 https://doi.org/10.4184/jkss.2005.12.1.69
  8. Kuklo TR, Polly DW, Owens BD, Zeidman SM, Chang AS, Klemme WR : Measurement of thoracic and lumbar fracture kyphosis: evaluation of intraobscrver, interobscrver, and technique variability. Spine 26 : 61-65; discussion 66, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200101010-00012
  9. Kuklo TR, Potter BK, O'Brien MF, Schroeder TM, Lenke LG, Polly DW Jr : Reliability analysis for digital adolescent idiopathic scoliosis measurements. J Spinal Disord Tech 18: 152-159, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000148094.75219.b0
  10. McKiernan F, Faciszcwski T, Jensen R : Reporting height restoration in vertebral compression fractures. Spine 28: 2517-2521; discussion 2513, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000092424.29886.C9
  11. Morrissy RT, Goldsmith GS, Hall EC, Kehl D, Cowie GH : Measurement of the Cobb angIe on radiographs of patients who have scoliosis. Evaluation of intrinsic error. J Bone Joint Surg 72A: 320-327, 1990
  12. Polly DW Jr, Kilkelly FX, McHale KA, Asplund LM, Mulligan M, Chang AS : Measurement oflumbar lordosis. Evaluation of inrraobserver, interobserver, and technique variability. Spine 21 : 1530-1535; discussion 1535-1536, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199607010-00008
  13. Rhyne A 3rd, Banit D, Laxer E, Odum S, Nussman D : Kyphoplasry : report of eighty-two thoracolumbar osreoporotic vertebral fractures. J Orthop Trauma 18 : 294-299, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-200405000-00005
  14. Ryu KS, Park CK, Kim MC, Kang JK : Dose-dependent epidural leakage of polymethylmethacrylate after petcutaneous vertebroplascy in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. J Neurosurg 96 : 56-61, 2002
  15. Seel EH, Verrill CL, Mehta RL, Davies EM : Measurement of fracture kyphosis with the Oxford Cobbometer : intra- and interobserver reliabilities and comparison with other techniques. Spine 30 : 964-968, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000158952.43914.fb
  16. Singer KP, Jones TJ, Breidahl PD : A comparison of radiographic and computer-assisted measurements of thoracic and thoracolumbar sagittal curvature. Skeletal Radiol 19 : 21-26, 1990
  17. Tomita S, Molloy S, Jasper LE, Abe M, Belkoff SM : Biomechanical comparison of kyphoplasty with different hone cements. Spine 29: 1203-1207, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200406010-00009
  18. Turner-Smith AR, Harris JD, Houghton GR, Jefferson RJ : A method for analysis of back shape in scoliosis. J Biomech 21 : 497-509, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(88)90242-4
  19. Winking M, Stahl JP, Oertel M, Schnettler R, Boker DK: Treatment of pain from osteoporotic vertebral collapse by percutaneous PMMA vertebroplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 146 : 469-476, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-004-0259-7
  20. Yuan HA, Brown CW, Phillips FM : Osteoporotic spinal deformity: a biomechanical rationale for the clinical consequences and treatment of vertebral body compression fracrures. J Spinal Disord Tech 17 : 236-242, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1097/00024720-200406000-00012