Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

CAPASSO’S METHOD REVISITED: VALIDATION AGAINST CONVENTIONAL MEASUREMENT TOOLS IN EVALUATION OF COBB ANGLE FOR SCOLIOSIS



Abstract

Introduction: Capasso’s method(CM) has been described in orthopaedic textbooks to be the most sensitive tool for measuring Cobb angle in scoliosis. This method based on “bi-univocal principle” views the scoliosis curve to be an arc of circumference, to be a true reflection of angular values and hence geometrically more valid. However there is no comparative study between the established measurement tools i.e. Oxford cobbometer(OC) & Traditional protractor(TP) vs. CM. Our objectives were to to evaluate the sensitivity of CM against OC & TP in scoliosis and to determine intra & inter-observer reliability of the three methods.

Methods: Three independent blinded observers measured 24 digital AP radiographs of scoliosis on three separate occasions one week apart by CM, OC & TP. The three sets of readings obtained were statistically analysed for intra-observer (Cronbach’s alpha) & inter-observer [Inter-class correlation coefficient(ICC)] reliability.

Results: The mean Cobb angle measured by OC was 42.4(r13-91), by TP was 45.1(r16-89) and by CM was 70.4(r 20-148). The cronbach’s was 0.94 for OC, 0.91 for TP & 0.88 for CM. The ICC was 0.96 for OC, 0.90 for TP & 0.71 for CM. The measurements obtained by CM were higher than the other two methods for all magnitudes of the curves.

Conclusion: CM based on sound geometric principles is perceived to be superior to Cobb angle and has reasonable correlation(Pearson’s®=0.74) with it. However CM overestimates the magnitude of scoliosis as compared to other standard measurement tools. Management decisions based on CM would be inappropriate by current guidelines.

Ethics approval: Not applicable Interest Statement: None

Correspondence should be addressed to BSS c/o BOA, at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3PE, England.