Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 4570–4577 | Cite as

Sagittal balance measures are more reproducible when measured in 3D vs in 2D using full-body EOS® images

  • Masashi Okamoto
  • Fouad Jabour
  • Kenichiro Sakai
  • Shun Hatsushikano
  • J. C. Le Huec
  • Kazuhiro Hasegawa
Computer Applications
  • 130 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

An innovative low-dose X-ray biplanar imager (EOS®) allows measurement of the whole-body in standing-position which is necessary for the evaluation of spinal deformities.

Methods

A total of 60 asymptomatic subjects (ages 20–81 years) were evaluated using the 3D workflow called postural assessment and 2D measures. Subjects were measured twice each by two new observers following training, including: lordosis/kyphosis, pelvic parameters, sagittal-vertical axis, and spinal-sacral angle. Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility and similarity were compared between 2D and 3D measures.

Results

The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was very high for the 3D measures (>0.9) and excellent for the 2D measures (>0.75). In all cases, the overall mean absolute difference between repeated 3D measures was less than 2°, or 2 mm. For all parameters, the inter- and intra-observer reproducibility in 3D measures were significantly superior to 2D measures (p < 0.03).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that 3D measures have better reproducibility than 2D for sagittal balance.

Key Points

• Reproducibility of sagittal balance 2D/3D measurements was evaluated using EOS® full-body radiographs.

• Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility were significantly superior for 3D measures vs. 2D.

• 3D measures have better reproducibility than 2D for sagittal balance.

Keywords

Whole-body imaging Postural balance Standing position Radiography Reproducibility of results 

Abbreviations

AP

Anteroposterior

C7

Seventh cervical vertebra

FBI

Full-body index

ICC

Intra-class correlation coefficient

PI

Pelvic incidence

PT

Pelvic tilt

QOL

Quality of life

SS

Sacral slope

SSA

Spinal sacral angle

SVA

Sagittal vertical axis

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Masashi Okamoto.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• cross-sectional study

• multicentre study

References

  1. 1.
    Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K, Horton W, Dimar JR (2005) Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(6):682–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lazennec JY, Ramaré S, Arafati N et al (2000) Sagittal alignment in lumbosacral fusion: relations between radiological parameters and pain. Eur Spine J 9(1):47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Le Huec JC, Hasegawa K (2016) Normative values for the spine shape parameters using 3D standing analysis from a database of 268 asymptomatic Caucasian and Japanese subjects. Eur Spine J.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4485-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steffen JS, Obeid I, Aurouer N et al (2010) 3D postural balance with regard to gravity line: an evaluation in the transversal plane on 93 patients and 23 asymptomatic volunteers. Eur Spine J 19(5):760–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Illés T, Tunyogi-Csapo M, Somoskeöy S (2011) Breakthrough in three-dimensional scoliosis diagnosis: significance of horizontal plane view and vertebra vectors. Eur Spine J 20(1):135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gangnet N, Pomero V, Dumas R, Skalli W, Vital JM (2003) Variability of the spine and pelvis location with respect to the gravity line: a three-dimensional stereoradiographic study using a force platform. Surg Radiol Anat 25(5-6):424–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schwab F, Lafage V, Boyce R, Skalli W, Farcy JP (2006) Gravity line analysis in adult volunteers: age-related correlation with spinal parameters, pelvic parameters, and foot position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(25):E959–E967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dolan P, Adams MA (2001) Recent advances in lumbar spinal mechanics and their significance for modelling. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 16 Suppl 1:S8–S16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amabile C, Le Huec JC, Skalli W (2016) Invariance of head-pelvis alignment and compensatory mechanisms for asymptomatic adults older than 49 years. Eur Spine J.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4830-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diebo BG, Ferrero E, Lafage R et al (2015) Recruitment of compensatory mechanisms in sagittal spinal malalignment is age and regional deformity dependent: a full-standing axis analysis of key radiographical parameters. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(9):642–649.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000844 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duval-Beaupere G, Lamireau T (1985) Scoliosis at less than 30 degrees. Properties of the evolutivity (risk of progression). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 10(5):421–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Perdriolle R, Vidal J (1985) Thoracic idiopathic scoliosis cruve evolution and prognosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 10(9):785–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vedantam R, Lenke LG, Keeney JA, Bridwell KH (1998) Comparison of standing sagittal spinal alignment in asymptomatic adolescents and adults. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23(2):211–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dubousset J, Charpak G, Skalli W, De Guise JA, Kalifa G (2010) EOS: a new imaging system with low dose radiation in standing position for spine and bone & joint disorders. J Musculoskelet Res 13(01):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glaser DA, Doan J, Newton PO (2012) Comparison of 3D spinal reconstruction accuracy: biplanar radiographs with EOS versus computed tomography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1391–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gille O, Champain N, Benchikh-El-Fegoun A, Vital JM, Skalli W (2007) Reliability of 3D reconstruction of the spine of mild scoliotic patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(5):568–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deschênes S, Charron G, Beaudoin G et al (2010) Diagnostic imaging of spinal deformities: reducing patients radiation dose with a new slot-scanning X-ray imager. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(9):989–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carreau J, Bastrom T, Petcharapan M et al (2014) Computer-generated, three-dimensional spine model from biplanar radiographs: a validity study in idiopathic scoliosis curves greater than 50 degrees. Spine Deformity 2(2):81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ilharreborde B, Steffen JS, Nectoux E et al (2011) Angle measurement reproducibility using EOS three-dimensional reconstructions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by posterior instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(20):E1306–E1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yvert M, Diallo A, Bessou P, Rehel JL, Lhomme E, Chateil JF (2015) Radiography of scoliosis: comparative dose levels and image quality between a dynamic flat-panel detector and a slot-scanning device (EOS system). Diagn Interv Imaging 96:1177–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dietrich TJ, Pfirrmann CW, Schwab A, Pankalla K, Buck FM (2013) Comparison of radiation dose, workflow, patient comfort and financial break-even of standard digital radiography and a novel biplanar low-dose X-ray system for upright full-length lower limb and whole spine radiography. Skeletal Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-013-1600-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Law M, Ma WK, Chan E et al (2017) Evaluation of cumulative effective dose and cancer risk from repetitive full spine imaging using EOS system: impact to adolescent patients of different populations. Eur J Radiol 96:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Le Huec JC, Leijssen P, Duarte M, Aunoble S (2011) Thoracolumbar imbalance analysis for osteotomy planification using a new method: FBI technique. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 5):669–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Bess S et al (2017) Recent and emerging advances in spinal deformity. Neurosurgery 80(3S):S70–S85CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Niigata Spine Surgery CenterNiigataJapan
  2. 2.Ortho-Spine DepartmentBordeaux University HospitalBordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations