Cobb angle measurement with a conventional convex echography probe and a smartphone

  • Joan Ferràs-TarragóEmail author
  • J. M. Morales Valencia
  • P. Rubio Belmar
  • S. Pérez Vergara
  • P. Jordà Gómez
  • J. L. Bas Hermida
  • P. Bas Hermida
  • T. Bas Hermida
Original Article


Background context

Serial X-rays are needed during the follow-up of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. They are done every 6 or 3 months in cases of high risk of progression. Thanks to the advances in ultrasound techniques, deformity measurement systems free from ionizing radiations have been validated, although spinal surgeons did not use them routinely due to the need of special software.


The aim of our work is to assess the reproducibility and correlation of an ultrasound measuring system based on the positioning of the transverse processes.

Study design

Prospective, single center, randomized, triple blinded.


Two independent researchers trained in ultrasound examined the spinal deformities of 31 children. The measurements were compared against those performed with an X-ray by three scoliosis expert surgeons. Statistics were performed by an independent researcher. Parametric methods were used.


We found a 95% [(0.91–0.97) p < 2.2e−16] correlation between the degree of scoliosis measured with the proposed ultrasound system and the 30 cm × 90 cm X-rays in standing position. There was an intra-observer reliability of 97% [r-squared = 0.97; CI 95% (0.95–0.98) p < 2.2e−16] and an inter-observer reliability of 95% [r-squared = 0.95; CI 95% (0.90–0.97) p < 2.2e−16].


An approximation of the Cobb angle measure is possible with ultrasound by using the transverse processes as reference. This is a very rapid and simple system for assessing the principal spinal deformity measure in young people, although it does not allow estimating the associated axial or sagittal rotation.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.


Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis Cobb angle X-ray Echography Breast cancer 



Special mention to Isabel Llorenç and to Teresa Rodríguez for their ideas and commitment to the project.


The study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the institution (2017/0619).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

586_2019_6030_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (448 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 448 kb)


  1. 1.
    Kamtsiuris P, Atzpodien K, Ellert U, Schlack R, Schlaud M (2007) Prevalence of somatic diseases in German children and adolescents. Results of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS). Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundh Gesundh 50(5–6):686–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Konieczny MR, Senyurt H, Krauspe R (2013) Epidemiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Child Orthop 7(1):3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Negrini S, Donzelli S, Aulisa AG, Czaprowski D, Schreiber S, de Mauroy JC et al (2018) 2016 SOSORT guidelines: orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 13:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Uno H, Wei L-J, Hughes M (2014) Effects of bracing in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. N Engl J Med 370(7):680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Negrini S, Negrini F, Fusco C, Zaina F (2011) Idiopathic scoliosis patients with curves more than 45 Cobb degrees refusing surgery can be effectively treated through bracing with curve improvements. Spine J 11(5):369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lenke LG (2005) Lenke classification system of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: treatment recommendations. Instr Course Lect 54:537–542Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Terran J, Schwab F, Shaffrey CI, Smith JS, Devos P, Ames CP et al (2013) The SRS-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: assessment and clinical correlations based on a prospective operative and nonoperative cohort. Neurosurgery 73(4):559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trobisch PD, Ducoffe AR, Lonner BS, Errico TJ (2013) Choosing fusion levels in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21(9):519–528Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    El-Hawary R, Chukwunyerenwa C (2014) Update on evaluation and treatment of scoliosis. Pediatr Clin N Am 61(6):1223–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lonstein JE, Carlson JM (1984) The prediction of curve progression in untreated idiopathic scoliosis during growth. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66(7):1061–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knott P, Pappo E, Cameron M, Demauroy J, Rivard C, Kotwicki T et al (2014) SOSORT 2012 consensus paper: reducing X-ray exposure in pediatric patients with scoliosis. Scoliosis 9:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jada A, Mackel CE, Hwang SW, Samdani AF, Stephen JH, Bennett JT et al (2017) Evaluation and management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a review. Neurosurg Focus 43(4):E2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Law M, Ma W-K, Lau D, Chan E, Yip L, Lam W (2016) Cumulative radiation exposure and associated cancer risk estimates for scoliosis patients: impact of repetitive full spine radiography. Eur J Radiol 85(3):625–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Presciutti SM, Karukanda T, Lee M (2014) Management decisions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis significantly affect patient radiation exposure. Spine J 14(9):1984–1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Newton PO, Khandwala Y, Bartley CE, Reighard FG, Bastrom TP, Yaszay B (2016) New EOS imaging protocol allows a substantial reduction in radiation exposure for scoliosis patients. Spine Deform 4(2):138–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morel B, Moueddeb S, Blondiaux E, Richard S, Bachy M, Vialle R et al (2018) Dose, image quality and spine modeling assessment of biplanar EOS micro-dose radiographs for the follow-up of in-brace adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. Eur Spine J 27(5):1082–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khodaei M, Hill D, Zheng R, Le LH, Lou EHM (2018) Intra- and inter-rater reliability of spinal flexibility measurements using ultrasonic (US) images for non-surgical candidates with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a pilot study. Eur Spine J 27:2156–2164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zheng Y-P, Lee TT-Y, Lai KK-L, Yip BH-K, Zhou G-Q, Jiang W-W et al (2016) A reliability and validity study for Scolioscan: a radiation-free scoliosis assessment system using 3D ultrasound imaging. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 11:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oxborrow NJ (2000) Assessing the child with scoliosis: the role of surface topography. Arch Dis Child 83(5):453–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knott P, Mardjetko S, Nance D, Dunn M (2006) Electromagnetic topographical technique of curve evaluation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(24):E911–E915 (discussion E916) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen W, Le LH, Lou EHM (2012) Ultrasound imaging of spinal vertebrae to study scoliosis. Open J Acoust 2(3):95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Homans J (2018) How do different ultrasound measurements of the scoliotic spine relate to the Cobb angle? A CT based study? In: Global spine congressGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fleiss L, Cohen J (1973) The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 33:613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med 22(3):276–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Villemure I, Aubin CE, Grimard G, Dansereau J, Labelle H (2001) Progression of vertebral and spinal three-dimensional deformities in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a longitudinal study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(20):2244–2250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    White AA 3rd (1971) Kinematics of the normal spine as related to scoliosis. J Biomech 4(5):405–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Morrison DG, Chan A, Hill D, Parent EC, Lou EHM (2015) Correlation between Cobb angle, spinous process angle (SPA) and apical vertebrae rotation (AVR) on posteroanterior radiographs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Eur Spine J 24(2):306–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Naziri Q, Detolla J, Hayes W, Burekhovich S, Merola A, Akamnanu C et al (2018) A systematic review of all smart phone applications specifically aimed for use as a scoliosis screening tool. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 28(1):25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan Ferràs-Tarragó
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • J. M. Morales Valencia
    • 1
  • P. Rubio Belmar
    • 1
  • S. Pérez Vergara
    • 1
  • P. Jordà Gómez
    • 1
  • J. L. Bas Hermida
    • 1
  • P. Bas Hermida
    • 1
  • T. Bas Hermida
    • 1
  1. 1.La Fe HospitalValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Castellón de la PlanaSpain

Personalised recommendations