Hi All,
I recently came across an article in the Spine Journal which might be of interest to those who are concerned with the effects of frequent x-rays.
Volume 3, Issue 5 (Supplement), Pages 156-157 (September 2003)
A non-invasive approach for scoliosis assessment
Jean Dubousset , Dror Ovadia , Joseph Leitner , Bruno Fragniere ,
Manuel Rigo and Dalia Dickman
Article outline
Copyright
HYPOTHESIS: To investigate the correlation of spinal deformity
measurements with Ortelius 800 radiation-free system as compared to the standard radiographic measured Cobb angles. To assess Ortelius 800 clinical value while enabling a significant reduction of X-ray exposure.
METHODS: One hundred and two patients diagnosed with AIS from three different medical centers were measured with the Ortelius 800 system by the same standard protocol. The entire process required an average of 2 minutes. The Ortelius 800 measurements were correlated with the standard Cobb angle as measured on routine standing coronal and sagittal radiographs.
RESULTS: Two hundred and five coronal Cobb angles were measured for scoliosis with a mean of 18 degrees for thoracic curves and 17.7 degrees for lumbar curves and a median of 17.0 degrees for thoracic curves and 17 degrees for lumbar curves. Thirty-eight sagittal Cobb angles were measured with a mean of 36 degrees a median of 34.0 degrees. No statistical difference was found when comparing median (Fig. 1) of Cobb angles measured by Ortelius800. The Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.85 in both the coronal plane and the sagittal plane (P value of<0.0001) (Fig. 2). The mean difference between Ortelius800 and radiograph measurements was 0.29 ([95%
confidence interval (−0.51; 1.09]). The Wilcoxon signed-ranks test for matched pairs shows no statistically significant difference betweeen the two measuring methods (P value=0.651)
DISCUSSION: The golden standard for scoliosis assessment is the
radiograph with Cobb angle measurement. The Ortelius800 provides a radiation-free method for scoliosis assessment in three planes (coronal, sagittal, apical) with simultaneous automatic calculation of the Cobb angle in both coronal and sagittal views.
CONCLUSIONS: The results reveal good correlation between the two measuring methods in both coronal and sagittal views. Comparison of results from the three independent sites and six independent examiners shows no significant difference. We propose the Ortelius 800 as a clinical tool for the routine follow-up measurements of AIS patients, thus enabling a significant reduction of radiation exposure.
I recently came across an article in the Spine Journal which might be of interest to those who are concerned with the effects of frequent x-rays.
Volume 3, Issue 5 (Supplement), Pages 156-157 (September 2003)
A non-invasive approach for scoliosis assessment
Jean Dubousset , Dror Ovadia , Joseph Leitner , Bruno Fragniere ,
Manuel Rigo and Dalia Dickman
Article outline
Copyright
HYPOTHESIS: To investigate the correlation of spinal deformity
measurements with Ortelius 800 radiation-free system as compared to the standard radiographic measured Cobb angles. To assess Ortelius 800 clinical value while enabling a significant reduction of X-ray exposure.
METHODS: One hundred and two patients diagnosed with AIS from three different medical centers were measured with the Ortelius 800 system by the same standard protocol. The entire process required an average of 2 minutes. The Ortelius 800 measurements were correlated with the standard Cobb angle as measured on routine standing coronal and sagittal radiographs.
RESULTS: Two hundred and five coronal Cobb angles were measured for scoliosis with a mean of 18 degrees for thoracic curves and 17.7 degrees for lumbar curves and a median of 17.0 degrees for thoracic curves and 17 degrees for lumbar curves. Thirty-eight sagittal Cobb angles were measured with a mean of 36 degrees a median of 34.0 degrees. No statistical difference was found when comparing median (Fig. 1) of Cobb angles measured by Ortelius800. The Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.85 in both the coronal plane and the sagittal plane (P value of<0.0001) (Fig. 2). The mean difference between Ortelius800 and radiograph measurements was 0.29 ([95%
confidence interval (−0.51; 1.09]). The Wilcoxon signed-ranks test for matched pairs shows no statistically significant difference betweeen the two measuring methods (P value=0.651)
DISCUSSION: The golden standard for scoliosis assessment is the
radiograph with Cobb angle measurement. The Ortelius800 provides a radiation-free method for scoliosis assessment in three planes (coronal, sagittal, apical) with simultaneous automatic calculation of the Cobb angle in both coronal and sagittal views.
CONCLUSIONS: The results reveal good correlation between the two measuring methods in both coronal and sagittal views. Comparison of results from the three independent sites and six independent examiners shows no significant difference. We propose the Ortelius 800 as a clinical tool for the routine follow-up measurements of AIS patients, thus enabling a significant reduction of radiation exposure.
Comment