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 2/2016

01-02-2016 | Original Article

The validity and reliability of “Spinal Mouse” assessment of spinal curvatures in the frontal plane in pediatric adolescent idiopathic thoraco-lumbar curves

Authors: Ayse Livanelioglu, Fatma Kaya, Vugar Nabiyev, Gokhan Demirkiran, Tüzün Fırat

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Radiological measurement has been accepted as the gold standard for evaluating scoliosis for many years. However, exposure of children to X-ray constitutes a major limitation of the radiological methods. Spinal Mouse (SM) is a safe, practical and easy to perform measurement of curvature in scoliosis, but its validity and reliability have not been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of Cobb angle and SM measurements in children with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS).

Methods

Fifty-one patients with AIS who were followed up conservatively were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 14.4 years (9–18 years). Frontal plane curvatures were evaluated with SM by 2 physiotherapists and the results were compared with radiological measurements. Radiological measurements were performed by 2 orthopedists.

Results

All the measurements were of the thoraco-lumbar curve and the mean value was 35.08° according to Cobb angle measurement. There was no difference between the interobserver measurements of SM (p = 0.256) while the Cobb degrees measured by the 2 orthopedists was different (p = 0.0001). We did not find a statistically significant difference between Cobb measurements and the SM measurements of observer 1 and 2 (p = 0.505). The interobserver and intraobserver agreement of the Cobb and SM measurements was excellent (ICC = 0.872–0.962). When the differences between the evaluations were compared, the interobserver SM differences were seen to be lower than the interobserver Cobb angle differences (p = 0.003). The agreement between the Cobb and SM measurements was higher for curves over 40°. We found a strong or very strong relationship between measurements made with the Cobb and SM methods (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

We conclude that SM can be used for research and patient follow-up in the clinic as a safe, reliable, quick, and easy to use method with no side effects although it cannot be the only factor to consider when determining the treatment plan of AIS patients.
Literature
1.
2.
Beekman CE, Hall V (1979) Variability of scoliosis measurement from spinal roentgenograms. Phys Ther 59(6):764–765PubMed
3.
Delorme S, Petit Y, De Guise JA et al (2003) Assessment of the 3-D reconstruction and high-resolution geometrical modeling of the human skeletal trunk from 2-D radiographic images. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 50(8):989–998PubMedCrossRef
4.
Doody MM, Lonstein JE, Stovall M et al (2000) Breast cancer mortality after diagnostic radiography: findings from the US Scoliosis Cohort Study. Spine 25(16):2052–2063PubMedCrossRef
5.
Fleiss RJ, Menke JM (2001) Functional Rating Index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine 26(1):78–86CrossRef
6.
7.
Goldberg MS, Mayo NE, Levy AR et al (1998) Adverse reproductive outcomes among women exposed to low levels of ionizing radiation from diagnostic radiography for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Epidemiology 9(3):271–278PubMedCrossRef
8.
Goldberg MS, Poitras B, Mayo NE et al (1988) Observer variation in assessing spinal curvature and skeletal development in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 13(12):1371–1377PubMedCrossRef
9.
Greiner KA (2002) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: radiologic decision-making. Am Fam Physician 65(9):1817–1822PubMed
10.
Gstoettner M, Sekyra K, Walochnik N et al (2007) Inter-and intraobserver reliability assessment of the Cobb angle: manual versus digital measurement tools. Eur Spine J 16(10):1587–1592PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
12.
Ille´s T, Somoskeo¨y S (2013) Comparison of scoliosis measurements based on three-dimensional vertebra vectors and conventional two-dimensional measurements: advantages in evaluation of prognosis and surgical results. Eur Spine J 22:1255–1263. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-012-2651-y CrossRef
13.
14.
Knott P, Mardjetko S, Nance D et al (2006) Electromagnetic topographical technique of curve evaluation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 31(24):911–915CrossRef
15.
Levy AR, Goldberg MS, Mayo NE et al (1996) Reducing the lifetime risk of cancer from spinal radiographs among people with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 21(13):1540–1547PubMedCrossRef
16.
Loder RT, Spiegel D, Gutknecht S et al (2004) The assessment of intraobserver and interobserver error in the measurement of noncongenital scoliosis in children ≤10 years of age. Spine 29(22):2548–2553PubMedCrossRef
17.
Loder RT, Urquhart A, Steen H et al (1995) Variability in Cobb angle measurements in children with congenital scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77(5):768–770PubMed
18.
19.
Mannion AF, Knecht K, Balaban G et al (2004) A new skin-surface device for measuring the curvature and global and segmental ranges of motion of the spine: reliability of measurements and comparison with data reviewed from the literature. Eur Spine J 13(2):122–136PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Morrissy RT, Goldsmith GS, Hall EC et al (1990) Measurement of the Cobb angle on radiographs of patients who have. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72(3):320–327PubMed
21.
Ovadia D, Bar-On E, Fragniere B et al (2007) Radiation-free quantitative assessment of scoliosis: a multi-center prospective study. Eur Spine J 16(1):97–105PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Parent S, Labelle H, Skalli W et al (2002) Morphometric analysis of anatomic scoliotic specimens. Spine 27(21):2305–2311PubMedCrossRef
23.
24.
Pearsall DJ, Reid JG, Hedden DM (1992) Comparison of three noninvasive methods for measuring scoliosis. Physical Ther 72(9):648–657
25.
Post RB, Leferink VJM (2004) Spinal mobility: sagittal range of motion measured with the Spinal Mouse: a new non-invasive device. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124(3):187–192PubMedCrossRef
26.
Pruijs JE, Hageman MA, Keessen W et al (1994) Variation in Cobb angle measurements in scoliosis. Skeletal Radiol 23(7):517–520PubMedCrossRef
27.
Reamy BV, Slakey JB (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: review and current concepts. Am Fam Physician 64(1):111–116PubMed
28.
Ripani M, Di Cesare A, Giombini A et al (2008) Spinal curvature: comparison of frontal measurements with the Spinal Mouse and radiographic assessment. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 48(4):488–494PubMed
29.
30.
Salisbury PJ, Porter RW (1987) Measurement of lumbar sagittal mobility a comparison of methods. Spine 12(2):190–193PubMedCrossRef
31.
Stokes IA, Bevins TM, Lunn RA (1987) Back surface curvature and measurement of lumbar spinal motion. Spine 12(4):355–361PubMedCrossRef
32.
Metadata
Title
The validity and reliability of “Spinal Mouse” assessment of spinal curvatures in the frontal plane in pediatric adolescent idiopathic thoraco-lumbar curves
Authors
Ayse Livanelioglu
Fatma Kaya
Vugar Nabiyev
Gokhan Demirkiran
Tüzün Fırat
Publication date
01-02-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3945-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

European Spine Journal 2/2016 Go to the issue

Original Article

Safety and compatibility of magnetic-controlled growing rods and magnetic resonance imaging

Original Article

Lumbar disc herniation surgery in children: outcome and gender differences

Original Article

Factors influencing radiographic and clinical outcomes in adult scoliosis surgery: a study of 448 European patients

Original Article

One-stage posterior spinal shortening by L5 partial spondylectomy for spondyloptosis or L5–S1 high-grade spondylolisthesis management

Original Article

Selection of distal fusion level in posterior instrumentation and fusion of Scheuermann kyphosis: is fusion to sagittal stable vertebra necessary?

Original Article

Comparison of spinal deformity in children with Chiari I malformation with and without syringomyelia: matched cohort study