Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 91-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 433 - 433
1 Sep 2009
Filo O Schechtmann A Ovadia D Fishkin M Wientroub S
Full Access

Introduction: School screening for scoliosis aims to reduce the need for surgery by detecting curve changes in children at an early stage when bracing may be effective in halting the progression of the deformity. Although the effectiveness of the current screening techniques has not been established yet, AAOS and SRS continue to support school screening.. The major criticism focuses on the cost-ineffectiveness of the process, as too many students are unjustifiably referred to specialists. Moreover, examiner’s skills and experience are important factors in screening outcome. An ongoing, large-scale study of school screening is conducted in public schools at the northern part of Israel comparing the screening performance of a Scoliometer and a new, hand-held computerized device (SpineScan). SpineScan was designed to automatically measure the “angle of trunk inclination” (ATI), and is less dependent on examiner’s level of medical training. Furthermore, this tool enables also fast assessment of the kyphosis angle.

Methods: In a first phase of the study, 1000 children aged 10 to 14 years were screened. Each child underwent “blinded” examinations by two examiners with different skills (a pediatric orthopaedic surgeon and a physiotherapist), each of whom using a different tool (a Scoliometer and SpineScan, respectively). Screening was performed in examination positions specific for true scoliosis (standing and sitting forward bending) and ATI measurements were compared. Children with an ATI =or > 7º measured with either tool at both positions were referred to undergo a standard full spine X-ray in standing position, on which an experienced pediatric orthopaedic surgeon measured the Cobb angles. Curves = or > 10º were considered true positive findings for scoliosis. Statistical analysis included specificity, sensitivity and predictive value estimates of both methods.

Results: Referral rate for Scoliometer was 2.5% and for SpineScan 1.9%. SpineScan reached 80% sensitivity vs. 70% of the Scoliometer. Moreover, SpineScan achieved higher PPV values than the Scoliometer (80% vs. 54% respectively).

Discussion: These results imply that efficient and cost effective screening can be performed by minimally skilled examiner using SpineScan.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 91-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 430 - 430
1 Sep 2009
Filo O Shectmann A Ovadia D Bar-On E Fragniere B Rigo M Leitner J Wientroub S Dubousset J
Full Access

Introduction: Accurate and quantitative measurements of the spine are essential for deformity diagnosis and assessment of curve progression. There is much concern related to the multiple exposures to ionizing radiation associated with the Cobb method of radiographic measurement, currently the standard procedure for diagnosis and follow-up of the progression of scoliosis. In addition, the Cobb method relies on two-dimensional analysis of a three-dimensional deformity. The Ortelius800TM aims to provide 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. This new device is based on direct measurement of the position of the tips of the spinous processes in space. A low intensity electromagnetic field records the spatial position of a sensor attached to the examiner’s finger while palpating the patient’s spinous processes. This study investigates the correlation of spinal deformity measurements with Ortelius800TM radiation-free system as compared to standard radiographic measured Cobb angles in order to assess Ortelius800TM clinical value while enabling a significant reduction of x-ray exposure.

Methods: 124 patients diagnosed with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) from four different medical centers were measured with the Ortelius800TM system using the same standard protocol. The entire process required an average of 2 minutes. The Ortelius800TM measurements were correlated with the standard Cobb angle as measured on routine standing coronal and sagittal radiographs. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for matched pair measurements. The mean difference and the absolute mean difference between measurements with the two methods was estimated.

Results: Standing full-spine coronal radiographs were obtained for each patient. Radiograph analysis for these 124 patients revealed 249 deformity measurements. The deformity measurements were comprised of 142 thoracic curves with a mean of 18.3° and 107 lumbar curves with a mean of 17.4°. Lateral radiographs were obtained from 38 patients with a mean of 36.1°. Correlation between Cobb angles measured manually on standard erect posteroanterior radiographs and those calculated by this new technique showed an absolute difference between the measurements to be significantly less than +\−5° for coronal measurements and significantly less than +\−6° for sagittal measurements indicating good correlation between the two methods.

Pearson’s correlation coefficient between deformity angles obtained by the two methods was highly significant (0.86) with a P value < 0.0001. The measurements from four independent sites were not significantly different.

Discussion: The results reveal good correlation between the two measuring methods in both coronal and sagittal views. We propose the Ortelius800TM as a clinical tool for the routine follow-up measurements of AIS patients, thus enabling a significant reduction of radiation exposure.