{"title":"肥胖症、骨质疏松症和脊柱侧凸对脊柱骨盆矢状位X光参数测量的观察者间可靠性的影响","authors":"Jun Ouchida, Hiroaki Nakashima, Tokumi Kanemura, Kenyu Ito, Mikito Tsushima, Masaaki Machino, Sadayuki Ito, Naoki Segi, Yasuhiro Nagatani, Yujiro Kagami, Shiro Imagama","doi":"10.22603/ssrr.2023-0050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We investigated the relationships between patient factors, including obesity, osteopenia, and scoliosis, and the reliability of measures of the spinopelvic sagittal parameters using conventional X-radiography (Xp) and slot-scanning Xp devices (EOS) and examined the differences in interobserver measurement reliability between them.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively enrolled 55 patients (52.7±25.3 years, 27 females) with conventional whole-spine Xp and EOS images taken within three months. Patients were classified according to obesity (Body mass index≥25 kg/m<sup>2</sup>), osteopenia (T score<-1), and scoliosis (Cobb angle>20°). The associations between patient factors and reliability of radiological parameter measurements were examined with interobserver intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), defined as poor, <.40; good, 40-.79; and excellent, ≥.80.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All parameters measured with EOS showed excellent reliability except for L4-S (ICC:.760, 95% CI:.295-.927) in the obesity+ group. All parameters measured with conventional Xp were excellent except for those classified as good: L4-S (.608,.093-.868) and pelvic incidence (PI) (.512,.078-.832) in the obese+ group; T1 slope (.781,.237-.952), L4-S (.718,.112-.936), sacral slope (SS) (.792,.237-.955), pelvic tilt (PT) (.787,.300-.952), and center of acoustic meatus and femoral head offset (CAM-HA) (.690,.090-.928) in the osteopenia+ group; and lumbar lordosis (LL, L4-S) (.712,.349-.889), SS (.608,.178-.843), and CAM-HA (.781,.480-.917) in the scoliosis+ group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reliability of EOS measurements was preferable except for L4-S in patients with obesity. The reliability of conventional Xp measurements of pelvic parameters SS, PT, and PI was affected by patient factors, including obesity, osteopenia, and scoliosis. When evaluating lower lumbar and pelvic parameters in patients with these factors, we recommend substituting thoracic parameters, LL (L1-S), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and T1 pelvic angle (TPA), or combining computed tomography (CT) measurements.</p>","PeriodicalId":22253,"journal":{"name":"Spine Surgery and Related Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10710890/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Obesity, Osteopenia, and Scoliosis on Interobserver Reliability of Measures of the Spinopelvic Sagittal Radiographic Parameters.\",\"authors\":\"Jun Ouchida, Hiroaki Nakashima, Tokumi Kanemura, Kenyu Ito, Mikito Tsushima, Masaaki Machino, Sadayuki Ito, Naoki Segi, Yasuhiro Nagatani, Yujiro Kagami, Shiro Imagama\",\"doi\":\"10.22603/ssrr.2023-0050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We investigated the relationships between patient factors, including obesity, osteopenia, and scoliosis, and the reliability of measures of the spinopelvic sagittal parameters using conventional X-radiography (Xp) and slot-scanning Xp devices (EOS) and examined the differences in interobserver measurement reliability between them.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively enrolled 55 patients (52.7±25.3 years, 27 females) with conventional whole-spine Xp and EOS images taken within three months. Patients were classified according to obesity (Body mass index≥25 kg/m<sup>2</sup>), osteopenia (T score<-1), and scoliosis (Cobb angle>20°). The associations between patient factors and reliability of radiological parameter measurements were examined with interobserver intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), defined as poor, <.40; good, 40-.79; and excellent, ≥.80.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All parameters measured with EOS showed excellent reliability except for L4-S (ICC:.760, 95% CI:.295-.927) in the obesity+ group. All parameters measured with conventional Xp were excellent except for those classified as good: L4-S (.608,.093-.868) and pelvic incidence (PI) (.512,.078-.832) in the obese+ group; T1 slope (.781,.237-.952), L4-S (.718,.112-.936), sacral slope (SS) (.792,.237-.955), pelvic tilt (PT) (.787,.300-.952), and center of acoustic meatus and femoral head offset (CAM-HA) (.690,.090-.928) in the osteopenia+ group; and lumbar lordosis (LL, L4-S) (.712,.349-.889), SS (.608,.178-.843), and CAM-HA (.781,.480-.917) in the scoliosis+ group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reliability of EOS measurements was preferable except for L4-S in patients with obesity. The reliability of conventional Xp measurements of pelvic parameters SS, PT, and PI was affected by patient factors, including obesity, osteopenia, and scoliosis. When evaluating lower lumbar and pelvic parameters in patients with these factors, we recommend substituting thoracic parameters, LL (L1-S), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and T1 pelvic angle (TPA), or combining computed tomography (CT) measurements.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22253,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spine Surgery and Related Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10710890/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spine Surgery and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2023-0050\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Surgery and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2023-0050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
简介:我们研究了患者因素(包括肥胖、骨质疏松和脊柱侧弯)与使用传统 X 射线摄影(Xp)和槽扫描 Xp 设备(EOS)测量脊柱骨盆矢状面参数的可靠性之间的关系,并考察了两者之间观察者间测量可靠性的差异:我们回顾性地收集了 55 名患者(52.7±25.3 岁,27 名女性)三个月内拍摄的常规全脊柱 Xp 和 EOS 图像。患者根据肥胖(体重指数≥25 kg/m2)、骨质疏松(T 评分 20°)进行分类。用观察者之间的类内相关系数(ICC)检验了患者因素与放射学参数测量可靠性之间的关系,结果显示,观察者之间的类内相关系数为差:除肥胖+组的 L4-S(ICC:.760,95% CI:.295-.927)外,用 EOS 测量的所有参数都显示出极佳的可靠性。用传统 Xp 测量的所有参数都非常可靠,只有被列为良好的参数除外:在肥胖+组中,L4-S(.608,.093-.868)和骨盆入射角(PI)(.512,.078-.832);在肥胖+组中,T1斜率(.781,.237-.952)、L4-S(.718,.112-.936)、骶骨斜率(SS)(.792,.237-.955)、骨盆倾斜(PT)(.787,.300-.952)和声波中心(.781,.237-.952)。结论:在脊柱侧凸+组中,EOS 测量的可信度更高,而在脊柱侧凸+组中,EOS 测量的可信度更低:结论:在肥胖症患者中,除 L4-S 外,EOS 测量的可靠性更佳。骨盆参数SS、PT和PI的传统Xp测量的可靠性受到肥胖、骨质疏松和脊柱侧弯等患者因素的影响。在评估有这些因素的患者的下腰椎和骨盆参数时,我们建议用胸椎参数LL(L1-S)、矢状垂直轴(SVA)和T1骨盆角(TPA)来替代,或结合计算机断层扫描(CT)测量。
Impact of Obesity, Osteopenia, and Scoliosis on Interobserver Reliability of Measures of the Spinopelvic Sagittal Radiographic Parameters.
Introduction: We investigated the relationships between patient factors, including obesity, osteopenia, and scoliosis, and the reliability of measures of the spinopelvic sagittal parameters using conventional X-radiography (Xp) and slot-scanning Xp devices (EOS) and examined the differences in interobserver measurement reliability between them.
Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 55 patients (52.7±25.3 years, 27 females) with conventional whole-spine Xp and EOS images taken within three months. Patients were classified according to obesity (Body mass index≥25 kg/m2), osteopenia (T score<-1), and scoliosis (Cobb angle>20°). The associations between patient factors and reliability of radiological parameter measurements were examined with interobserver intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), defined as poor, <.40; good, 40-.79; and excellent, ≥.80.
Results: All parameters measured with EOS showed excellent reliability except for L4-S (ICC:.760, 95% CI:.295-.927) in the obesity+ group. All parameters measured with conventional Xp were excellent except for those classified as good: L4-S (.608,.093-.868) and pelvic incidence (PI) (.512,.078-.832) in the obese+ group; T1 slope (.781,.237-.952), L4-S (.718,.112-.936), sacral slope (SS) (.792,.237-.955), pelvic tilt (PT) (.787,.300-.952), and center of acoustic meatus and femoral head offset (CAM-HA) (.690,.090-.928) in the osteopenia+ group; and lumbar lordosis (LL, L4-S) (.712,.349-.889), SS (.608,.178-.843), and CAM-HA (.781,.480-.917) in the scoliosis+ group.
Conclusions: Reliability of EOS measurements was preferable except for L4-S in patients with obesity. The reliability of conventional Xp measurements of pelvic parameters SS, PT, and PI was affected by patient factors, including obesity, osteopenia, and scoliosis. When evaluating lower lumbar and pelvic parameters in patients with these factors, we recommend substituting thoracic parameters, LL (L1-S), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and T1 pelvic angle (TPA), or combining computed tomography (CT) measurements.