European radiology · 2018
Sagittal balance measures are more reproducible when measured in 3D vs in 2D using full-body EOS® images.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Okamoto Masashi, Jabour Fouad, Sakai Kenichiro, Hatsushikano Shun, Le Huec J C, Hasegawa Kazuhiro
Аннотация
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.
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.