Skip to main content

Table 3 Differences (mean ± standard deviation) between upright (EOS) and prone (CT) positions for different scoliotic parameters

From: Accuracy on the preoperative assessment of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using biplanar low-dose stereoradiography: a comparison with computed tomography

Parameter Position Imaging modality Mean ± SD P-value
Slenderness (mm) Prone CT 9.74 ± 0.72 0.066 (0.898) a
Upright EOS 9.69 ± 0.72
Coronal profile
 Cobb angle (°) Prone CT 47.3 ± 10.0 < 0.001**
Upright EOS 62.9 ± 9.3
 Spinal deformity (°) Prone CT 24.8 ± 6.4 < 0.001**
Upright EOS 33.8 ± 6.3
 Vertebral wedging (°) At apical level Prone CT 6.5 ± 3.6 0.921 (0.615) a
Upright EOS 6.5 ± 3.5
 Intervertebral wedging (°) At apical level Prone CT 5.8 ± 2.7 < 0.001**
Upright EOS 6.4 ± 2.9
At upper end level Prone CT 3.1 ± 1.2 < 0.001**
Upright EOS 3.9 ± 1.3
At lower end level Prone CT 3.2 ± 1.4 ß < 0.001**
Upright EOS 4.2 ± 1.5
Sagittal profile
 Kyphosis (°) Prone CT 18.8 ± 10.3 0.554 (0.024)
Upright EOS 20.0 ± 14.2
 Lordosis (°) Prone CT 27.9 ± 11.4 < 0.001**
Upright EOS 48.8 ± 12.4
Axial profile
 Intervertebral axial rotation (°) At apical level Prone CT 3.4 ± 3.0 0.057 (0.382) a
Upright EOS 3.8 ± 3.2
At upper end level Prone CT 10.1 ± 4.7 0.134 (0.994) a
Upright EOS 8.8 ± 4.7
At lower end level Prone CT 6.4 ± 3.8 0.002 (0.001)
Upright EOS 5.9 ± 4.5
At T12-L1 level Prone CT 4.4 ± 3.7 0.447 (0.024)
Upright EOS 4.9 ± 2.6
 Torsion (°) Prone CT 6.3 ± 2.5 0.878 (0.114) a
Upright EOS 6.2 ± 2.0
  1. According to the Bland-Altman plot, the P value showed if there is agreement by using the t test. If this test showed no significant different (P > 0.05), a regression analysis was performed to see is if there is agreement, written in brackets; a Agreement according to the Bland-Altman plot
  2. Paired t-test: * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01; ß Wilcoxon sign ranks test:* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01 for the non-parametric parameter; SD, standard deviation; T12-L1, Thoracolumbar level