Abstract
Background: Scoliosis is a three-dimensional deformity of the spine. It is usually assessed by measuring Cobb angle. Nowadays, due to increasing effectiveness of image processing and machine vision, willingness to apply these methods has improved considerably in determining scoliosis of Cobb angle.
Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA guideline, a broad electronic search of all English language literature was conducted on the topic through four databases, including MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from 2012 (last search date from earlier review) to 30 March 2017.
Results: Twelve studies were included. 90% labeled high-quality were selected for analysis. Eighty percent of the selected studies were published in the period between 2012 and 2017. Three new procedures were used to measure the Cobb angle. One study used automated procedure (7%), two studies used smartphone procedure (14%), and nine studies used the semiautomatic procedure of Cobb measurement (79%). Seven studies reported reproducibility and repeatability. Reproducibility range was 0.72 to 1 in reporting of ICC. Repeatability has a high range in three separated methods.
Conclusion: Computerized assessment method (Automatic and Semi-automatic) is most commonly performed in Cobb measurement. Semi-automatic is an effective measurement option for computerized assessment Cobb angle. There is no significant difference between manual, computer- based, and smartphone-based methods in described measures.
Keywords: Spine, scoliosis, diagnostic imaging, image processing, computer-assisted, radiography, decision support systems.
Graphical Abstract
[1]
Negrini S, Minozzi S, Bettany-Saltikov J, et al. Braces for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents. Spine 2016; 41(23): 1813-25.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001887] [PMID: 27584672]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001887] [PMID: 27584672]
[2]
Mukherjee J, Kundu R, Chakrabarti A. Variability of Cobb angle measurement from digital X-ray image based on different de-noising techniques. Int J Biomed Eng Technol 2014; 16(2): 113-34.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBET.2014.065656]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBET.2014.065656]
[3]
Zhang J, Lou E, Hill DL, et al. Computer-aided assessment of scoliosis on posteroanterior radiographs. Med Biol Eng Comput 2010; 48(2): 185-95.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-009-0556-7] [PMID: 20012376]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-009-0556-7] [PMID: 20012376]
[4]
Romano M, Minozzi S, Bettany-Saltikov J, et al. Exercises for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (8): CD007837
[PMID: 22895967]
[PMID: 22895967]
[5]
Allam Y, El-Fiky T, Farghally MY, Al-Sabagh S, Siam AE. Comparison between Oxford Cobbmeter and digital Cobbmeter for measurement of Cobb angle in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2016; 25(2): 444-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4162-0] [PMID: 26223745]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4162-0] [PMID: 26223745]
[6]
Mok JM, Berven SH, Diab M, Hackbarth M, Hu SS, Deviren V. Comparison of observer variation in conventional and three digital radiographic methods used in the evaluation of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2008; 33(6): 681-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318166aa8d] [PMID: 18344863]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318166aa8d] [PMID: 18344863]
[7]
Freidel K, Petermann F, Reichel D, Steiner A, Warschburger P, Weiss HR. Quality of life in women with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2002; 27(4): E87-91.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200202150-00013] [PMID: 11840115]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200202150-00013] [PMID: 11840115]
[8]
Morrissy RT, Goldsmith GS, Hall EC, Kehl D, Cowie GH. Measurement of the Cobb angle on radiographs of patients who have scoliosis. Evaluation of intrinsic error. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990; 72(3): 320-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199072030-00002] [PMID: 2312527]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199072030-00002] [PMID: 2312527]
[9]
Carman DL, Browne RH, Birch JG. Measurement of scoliosis and kyphosis radiographs. Intraobserver and interobserver variation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990; 72(3): 328-33.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199072030-00003] [PMID: 2312528]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199072030-00003] [PMID: 2312528]
[10]
Dang NR, Moreau MJ, Hill DL, Mahood JK, Raso J. Intra-observer reproducibility and interobserver reliability of the radiographic parameters in the spinal deformity study group’s AIS radiographic measurement manual. Spine 2005; 30(9): 1064-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000160840.51621.6b] [PMID: 15864160]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000160840.51621.6b] [PMID: 15864160]
[11]
Adam CJ, Izatt MT, Harvey JR, Askin GN. Variability in Cobb angle measurements using reformatted computerized tomography scans. Spine 2005; 30(14): 1664-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000169449.68870.f8] [PMID: 16025038]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000169449.68870.f8] [PMID: 16025038]
[12]
Negrini S, Aulisa AG, Aulisa L, et al. 2011 SOSORT guidelines: orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth. Scoliosis 2012; 7(1): 3.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-7-3] [PMID: 22264320]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-7-3] [PMID: 22264320]
[13]
Anitha H, Karunakar AK, Dinesh KVN. Automatic extraction of vertebral endplates from scoliotic radiographs using customized filter. Biomed Eng Lett 2014; 4(2): 158-65.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13534-014-0129-z]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13534-014-0129-z]
[15]
Zhang J, Guo F, Li H, Lv L. Computer-aided treatment decision on
scoliosis based on three-dimensional radiographic. J Med Bioengeer
2014; 2014: 3(3).
[http://dx.doi.org/10.12720/jomb.3.3.212-216]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.12720/jomb.3.3.212-216]
[16]
Yildiz I. Computer-assisted Cobb angle measurement from posteroanterior radiographs by a curve fitting method. Turk J Electr Eng Co 2015; 24: 1-7.
[17]
Giannoglou V, Stylianidis E. Review of advances in cobb angle calculation and image-based modelling techniques for spinal deformities. ISPRS 2016; 2016: 129-35.
[18]
Oda M, Rauh S, Gregory PB, Silverman FN, Bleck EE. The significance of roentgenographic measurement in scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 1982; 2(4): 378-82.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01241398-198210000-00005] [PMID: 7142387]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01241398-198210000-00005] [PMID: 7142387]
[19]
Haynes S, Chau MN. The reproducibility and repeatability of the wits analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107(6): 640-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70108-7] [PMID: 7771370]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70108-7] [PMID: 7771370]
[20]
Hollis B, Mavrides E, Campbell S, Tekay A, Thilaganathan B. Reproducibility and repeatability of transabdominal uterine artery Doppler velocimetry between 10 and 14 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18(6): 593-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00544.x] [PMID: 11844196]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00544.x] [PMID: 11844196]
[21]
Langensiepen S, Semler O, Sobottke R, et al. Measuring procedures to determine the Cobb angle in idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2013; 22(11): 2360-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2693-9] [PMID: 23443679]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2693-9] [PMID: 23443679]
[22]
Yazdandoost M, Yazdandoost A, Akhoonili F, Sahba F, Eds. The diagnosis of lumbar disc disorder by MR image processing and data mining. World Automation Congress (WAC) IEEE 2016 2016:. 1-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WAC.2016.7583019]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WAC.2016.7583019]
[23]
Dougherty G. Medical image processing: techniques and applications. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media 2011.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9779-1]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9779-1]
[24]
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7)e1000097
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097] [PMID: 19621072]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097] [PMID: 19621072]
[25]
Light R, Smith P. Accumulating evidence: procedures for resolving contradictions among different research studies. Harv Educ Rev 1971; 41(4): 429-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.41.4.437714870334w144]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.41.4.437714870334w144]
[26]
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7)e1000100
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100] [PMID: 19621070]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100] [PMID: 19621070]
[27]
Stokes IA, Aronsson DD. Computer-assisted algorithms improve reliability of King classification and Cobb angle measurement of scoliosis. Spine 2006; 31(6): 665-70.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000203708.49972.ab] [PMID: 16540871]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000203708.49972.ab] [PMID: 16540871]
[28]
Aubin C-E, Bellefleur C, Joncas J, et al. Reliability and accuracy analysis of a new semiautomatic radiographic measurement software in adult scoliosis. Spine 2011; 36(12): E780-90.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f0825a] [PMID: 21224755]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f0825a] [PMID: 21224755]
[29]
Kundu R, Lenka P, Chakrabarti A. Cobb angle quantification for scoliosis using image processing techniques. IJCA 2012; 2012: 6-10.
[30]
Toan NB, Khoa TQD, Van Toi V. Computer-aid Cobb measurement of scoliosis using deformable model with fuzzy spatial relations. 4th International Conference on Biomedical Engineering in Vietnam. Berlin, Heidelberg. 2013; p. 350.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32183-2_86]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32183-2_86]
[31]
Sardjono TA, Wilkinson MH, Veldhuizen AG, van Ooijen PM, Purnama KE, Verkerke GJ. Automatic Cobb angle determination from radiographic images. Spine 2013; 38(20): E1256-62.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a0c7c3] [PMID: 23797500]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a0c7c3] [PMID: 23797500]
[32]
Carreau JH, Bastrom T, Petcharaporn M, et al. Computer-generated, three-dimensional spine model from biplanar radiographs: a validity study in idiopathic scoliosis curves greater than 50 degrees. Spine Deform 2014; 2(2): 81-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.10.003] [PMID: 27927383]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.10.003] [PMID: 27927383]
[33]
Chan AC, Morrison DG, Nguyen DV, Hill DL, Parent E, Lou EH. Intra- and Interobserver reliability of the Cobb angle-vertebral rotation angle-spinous process angle for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform 2014; 2(3): 168-75.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.02.006] [PMID: 27927414]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.02.006] [PMID: 27927414]
[34]
Wu W, Liang J, Du Y, et al. Reliability and reproducibility analysis of the Cobb angle and assessing sagittal plane by computer-assisted and manual measurement tools. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014; 15(1): 33.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-33] [PMID: 24502397]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-33] [PMID: 24502397]
[35]
Tho TNHT, Khoa TQD, Van Thanh V, Le LH, Van Toi V. Computer-aided management in scoliosis surgery Computational Surgery and Dual Training: Computing, Robotics and Imaging. Springer: New York 2014; pp. 57-65.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8648-0_4]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8648-0_4]
[36]
Farshad-Amacker NA, Nguyen TD, Farshad M, Andreisek G, Min K, Frauenfelder T. Semiautomatic superimposition improves radiological assessment of curve flexibility in scoliosis. Eur Radiol 2015; 25(3): 860-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3433-1] [PMID: 25231133]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3433-1] [PMID: 25231133]
[37]
Mutlu S, Guler O, Mutlu H, Komur B, Caliskan G, Heybeli N. A new trend in cobb angle measurement: the use of iphones. J Med Imaging Health Inform 2014; 4(3): 382-3.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1166/jmihi.2014.1268]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1166/jmihi.2014.1268]
[38]
Pepe M, Kocadal O, Iyigun A, Gunes Z, Aksahin E, Aktekin CN. Use of the smartphone for end vertebra selection in scoliosis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2017; 51(2): 146-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2016.12.006] [PMID: 28077254]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2016.12.006] [PMID: 28077254]
[39]
Vrtovec T, Pernuš F, Likar B. A review of methods for quantitative evaluation of spinal curvature. Eur Spine J 2009; 18(5): 593-607.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0913-0] [PMID: 19247697]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0913-0] [PMID: 19247697]
[40]
Shaw M, Adam CJ, Izatt MT, Licina P, Askin GN. Use of the iphone for Cobb angle measurement in scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2012; 21(6): 1062-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2059-0] [PMID: 22065167]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2059-0] [PMID: 22065167]
[41]
Radhakrishnan S, See J, Smith SD, et al. Reproducibility of anterior chamber angle measurements obtained with anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48(8): 3683-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.06-1120] [PMID: 17652739]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.06-1120] [PMID: 17652739]
[42]
Gstoettner M, Sekyra K, Walochnik N, Winter P, Wachter R, Bach CM. Inter- and intraobserver reliability assessment of the Cobb angle: manual versus digital measurement tools. Eur Spine J 2007; 16(10): 1587-92.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0401-3] [PMID: 17549526]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0401-3] [PMID: 17549526]
[43]
Wills BP, Auerbach JD, Zhu X, et al. Comparison of Cobb angle measurement of scoliosis radiographs with preselected end vertebrae: traditional versus digital acquisition. Spine 2007; 32(1): 98-105.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000251086.84420.d1] [PMID: 17202899]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000251086.84420.d1] [PMID: 17202899]
[44]
Laruelle M, Slifstein M, Huang Y. Relationships between radiotracer properties and image quality in molecular imaging of the brain with positron emission tomography. Mol Imaging Biol 2003; 5(6): 363-75.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mibio.2003.09.009] [PMID: 14667491]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mibio.2003.09.009] [PMID: 14667491]
[45]
Tanure MC, Pinheiro AP, Oliveira AS. Reliability assessment of Cobb angle measurements using manual and digital methods. Spine J 2010; 10(9): 769-74.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.020] [PMID: 20359959]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.020] [PMID: 20359959]
[46]
Rusli NQAM, Zulkifley MA, Hussain A, Mustafa MM. Image
processing techniques in physiotherapy: a brief review. 11th International
Colloquium on Signal Processing & Its Applications
(CSPA). IEEE; 2015.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CSPA.2015.7225625]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CSPA.2015.7225625]
[47]
Michopoulou S. . Image analysis for the diagnosis of MR images of
the lumbar spine: UCL. University College London 2011; 2011:
17:187.
[48]
Brinjikji W, Luetmer PH, Comstock B, et al. Systematic literature review of imaging features of spinal degeneration in asymptomatic populations. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015; 36(4): 811-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4173] [PMID: 25430861]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4173] [PMID: 25430861]
[49]
Rajeswari J, Jagannath M. Advances in biomedical signal and image processing- A systematic review. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked 2017; 8: 13-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2017.04.002]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2017.04.002]
[50]
Rose DC, Mukherjee N, Simmons BI, et al. Policy windows for the environment: tips for improving the uptake of scientific knowledge. Environ Sci Policy 2017.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.013]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.013]
[51]
Payne KB, Wharrad H, Watts K. Smartphone and medical related App use among medical students and junior doctors in the United Kingdom (UK): a regional survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012; 12(1): 121.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-121] [PMID: 23110712]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-121] [PMID: 23110712]
Article Metrics
36
2
1
1