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

Yeung, Kwong Hang; Man, Gene Chi Wai; Lam, Tsz Ping; Ng, Bobby Kin Wah; Cheng, Jack Chun Yiu; Chu, Winnie Chiu Wing

doi:10.1186/s12891-020-03561-2

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
Slenderness (mm)		Upright	EOS	9.69 ± 0.72	0.066 (0.898) ^a
Coronal profile
Cobb angle (°)		Prone	CT	47.3 ± 10.0	< 0.001**
Cobb angle (°)		Upright	EOS	62.9 ± 9.3	< 0.001**
Spinal deformity (°)		Prone	CT	24.8 ± 6.4	< 0.001**
Spinal deformity (°)		Upright	EOS	33.8 ± 6.3	< 0.001**
Vertebral wedging (°)	At apical level	Prone	CT	6.5 ± 3.6	0.921 (0.615) ^a
Vertebral wedging (°)	At apical level	Upright	EOS	6.5 ± 3.5	0.921 (0.615) ^a
Intervertebral wedging (°)	At apical level	Prone	CT	5.8 ± 2.7	< 0.001**
	At apical level	Upright	EOS	6.4 ± 2.9	< 0.001**
	At upper end level	Prone	CT	3.1 ± 1.2	< 0.001**
	At upper end level	Upright	EOS	3.9 ± 1.3	< 0.001**
	At lower end level	Prone	CT	3.2 ± 1.4	^ß < 0.001**
	At lower end level	Upright	EOS	4.2 ± 1.5	^ß < 0.001**
Sagittal profile
Kyphosis (°)		Prone	CT	18.8 ± 10.3	0.554 (0.024)
Kyphosis (°)		Upright	EOS	20.0 ± 14.2	0.554 (0.024)
Lordosis (°)		Prone	CT	27.9 ± 11.4	< 0.001**
Lordosis (°)		Upright	EOS	48.8 ± 12.4	< 0.001**
Axial profile
Intervertebral axial rotation (°)	At apical level	Prone	CT	3.4 ± 3.0	0.057 (0.382) ^a
	At apical level	Upright	EOS	3.8 ± 3.2	0.057 (0.382) ^a
	At upper end level	Prone	CT	10.1 ± 4.7	0.134 (0.994) ^a
	At upper end level	Upright	EOS	8.8 ± 4.7	0.134 (0.994) ^a
	At lower end level	Prone	CT	6.4 ± 3.8	0.002 (0.001)
	At lower end level	Upright	EOS	5.9 ± 4.5	0.002 (0.001)
	At T12-L1 level	Prone	CT	4.4 ± 3.7	0.447 (0.024)
	At T12-L1 level	Upright	EOS	4.9 ± 2.6	0.447 (0.024)
Torsion (°)		Prone	CT	6.3 ± 2.5	0.878 (0.114) ^a
Torsion (°)		Upright	EOS	6.2 ± 2.0	0.878 (0.114) ^a

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
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

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcmusculoskeletaldisorders@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Contact us