Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 6/2012

01-06-2012 | Original Article

A comparative study of axis-line-distance technique and Cobb method on assessing the curative effect on scoliosis

Authors: Jia-Wei He, Guang-Hui Bai, Xin-Jian Ye, Kun Liu, Zhi-Han Yan, Xian Zhang, Xiang-Yang Wang, Yi-Xing Huang, Zhi-Kang Yu

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 6/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the axis-line-distance technique (ALDT) and Cobb method for therapeutic evaluation of scoliosis.

Methods

Fifty-seven patients with scoliosis were treated in our hospital, 47 underwent conservative bracing therapy and 10 underwent surgery. Based on 171 full-spine X-ray images obtained from these 57 cases before treatment, during conservative treatment or surgery, and at final follow-up after removing the brace or after surgery, two radiologists independently measured and calculated the correction rate during treatment and at final follow-up and the rate of correction loss after treatment with the ALDT and Cobb methods. Paired t-test and correlation analysis were performed.

Results

Based on the ALDT, the lateral deviations of the apical vertebrae before treatment, during treatment, and at final follow-up were 31 ± 14 mm, 16 ± 8 mm, and 20 ± 8 mm, respectively; the correction rates during treatment and at final follow-up were 48.7 ± 21.2% and 37.6 ± 14.2%, respectively, and the rate of correction loss after treatment was 11.3 ± 6.5%. The Cobb angles of scoliosis before treatment, during treatment, and at final follow-up were 34 ± 14°, 19 ± 7°, and 22 ± 6°, respectively; the correction rates during treatment and at final follow-up were 44.4 ± 17.3% and 33.9 ± 14.4%, respectively, and the rate of correction loss after treatment was 11.4 ± 4.3%. Calculation of the correction rate during treatment differed significantly between the two radiologists when using the Cobb method (P < 0.05); their calculations of the correction rate and rate of correction loss were not different (P > 0.05). The measurement data of the two radiologists using the Cobb method showed a weak to moderate correlation (r = 0.49, 0.57, and 0.51, respectively). When using the ALDT, there were no significant differences between the radiologists in their measurements of the correction rate during and after treatment (P > 0.05) or in the rate of correction loss. The measurement data of the two radiologists using the ALDT showed a good to excellent correlation (r = 0.92, 0.93, and 0.90, respectively).

Conclusion

The ALDT is better than the Cobb method for therapeutic evaluation of scoliosis during treatment and at follow-up visits.
Literature
1.
Brooks HL, Azen SP, Gerberg E et al (1975) Scoliosis: a prospective epidemiological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 57:968–972PubMed
2.
Castro FP Jr (2003) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, bracing, and the Hueter-Volkmann principle. Spine J 3:180–185PubMedCrossRef
3.
Coillard C, LerouxMA ZabjekKF et al (2003) SpineCor: a non-rigid brace for the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis: post-treatment results. Eur Spine J 12:141–148PubMed
4.
Dickson RA, Weinstein SL (1999) Bracing (and screening) yes or no? J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:193–198PubMedCrossRef
5.
Duong L, Cheriet F, Labelle H et al (2009) Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the identification of the Lenke classification lumbar modifier in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:448–455PubMedCrossRef
6.
Gabos PG, Bojescul JA, Bowen JR et al (2004) Long-term follow-up of female patients with idiopathic scoliosis treated with the Wilmington orthosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:1891–1899PubMed
7.
Glassman SD, Berven S, Bridwell K et al (2005) Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine 30:682–688PubMedCrossRef
8.
Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR et al (2005) The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine 30:2024–2029PubMedCrossRef
9.
He JW, Yan ZH, Liu J et al (2009) Accuracy and repeatability of a new method for measuring scoliosis curvature. Spine 34:323–329CrossRef
10.
Hresko MT, Mesiha M, Richards K et al (2006) A comparison of methods for measuring spinal motion in female patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 26:758–763PubMedCrossRef
11.
Katz DE, Durrani AA (2001) Factors that influence outcome in bracing large curves in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 26:2354–2361PubMedCrossRef
12.
Kuklo TR, Potte BK, Polly DW et al (2005) Reliability analysis for manual adolescent idiopathic scoliosis measurements. Spine 30:444–453PubMedCrossRef
13.
Loder RT, Spiegel D, Gutknecht S et al (2004) The assessment of intraobserver and interobserver error in the measurement of noncongenital scoliosis in children < or = 10 years of age. Spine 29:2548–2553PubMedCrossRef
14.
Loder RT, Urquhart A, Grazlano G et al (1995) Variability in Cobb angle measurements in children with congenital scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77:768–770PubMed
15.
Min K, Hahn F, Ziebarth K (2007) Short anterior correction of the thoracolumbar/lumbar curve in King 1 idiopathic scoliosis: the behaviour of the instrumented and non-instrumented curves and the trunk balance. Eur Spine J 16:65–72PubMedCrossRef
16.
Morrissy RT, Goldsmith GS, Hall EC et al (1990) Measurement of the Cobb angle on radiographs of patients who have scoliosis. Evaluation of intrinsic error. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:320–327PubMed
17.
Newton PO, Parent S, Marks M et al (2005) Prospective evaluation of 50 consecutive scoliosis patients surgically treated with thoracoscopic anterior instrumentation. Spine 30([17 Suppl]):100–109CrossRef
18.
Parent S, Newton PO, Wenger DR (2005) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: etiology, anatomy, natural history, and bracing. Instr Course Lect 54:529–536PubMed
19.
Pinheiro AP, Tanure MC, Oliveira AS (2010) Validity and reliability of a computer method to estimate vertebral axial rotation from digital radiographs. Eur Spine J 19:415–420PubMedCrossRef
20.
Richards BS, Bernstein RM, D’Amato CR et al (2005) Standardization of criteria for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis brace studies: SRS Committee on Bracing and Nonoperative Management. Spine 30:2068–2075PubMedCrossRef
21.
Richards BS, Sucato DJ, Konigsberg DE et al (2003) Comparison of reliability between the Lenke and King classification systems for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using radiographs that were not premeasured. Spine 28:1148–1156PubMed
22.
Trivedi JM, Thomson JD (2001) Results of Charleston bracing in skeletally immature patients with idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 21:277–280PubMedCrossRef
23.
Wiley JW, Thomson JD, Mitchell TM et al (2000) Effectiveness of the Boston brace in treatment of large curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 25:2326–2332PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A comparative study of axis-line-distance technique and Cobb method on assessing the curative effect on scoliosis
Authors
Jia-Wei He
Guang-Hui Bai
Xin-Jian Ye
Kun Liu
Zhi-Han Yan
Xian Zhang
Xiang-Yang Wang
Yi-Xing Huang
Zhi-Kang Yu
Publication date
01-06-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 6/2012
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2081-2

Other articles of this Issue 6/2012

European Spine Journal 6/2012 Go to the issue

Original Article

Loss of apical vertebral derotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: 2-year follow-up using multi-planar reconstruction computed tomography

Original Article

Heritability of scoliosis

Review Article

The metabolic basis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: 2011 report of the “metabolic” workgroup of the Fondation Yves Cotrel

Original Article

The validity of ankle-brachial index for the differential diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease and lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with atypical claudication

Original Article

Biomechanical comparison of alternative densities of pedicle screws for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Original Article

360-degree osteosynthesis via a posterolateral transpedicular approach in high-risk patients