Development and assessment of a digital X-ray software tool to determine vertebral rotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The amount of vertebral rotation in the axial plane is of key importance in the prognosis and treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Current methods to determine vertebral rotation are either designed for use in analogue plain radiographs and not useful in digital images, or lack measurement precision and are therefore less suitable for the follow-up of rotation in AIS patients.PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop a digital X-ray software tool with high measurement precision to determine vertebral rotation in AIS, and to assess its (concurrent) validity and reliability.STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: In this study a combination of basic science and reliability methodology applied in both laboratory and clinical settings was used.METHODS: Software was developed using the algorithm of the Perdriolle torsion meter for analogue AP plain radiographs of the spine. Software was then assessed for (1) concurrent validity and (2) intra-and interobserver reliability. Plain radiographs of both human cadaver vertebrae and outpatient AIS patients were used. Concurrent validity was measured by two independent observers, both experienced in the assessment of plain radiographs. Reliability-measurements were performed by three independent spine surgeons.RESULTS: Pearson correlation of the software compared with the analogue Perdriolle torsion meter for mid-thoracic vertebrae was 0.98, for low-thoracic vertebrae 0.97 and for lumbar vertebrae 0.97. Measurement exactness of the software was within 5 degrees in 62% of cases and within 10 degrees in 97% of cases. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter-observer reliability was 0.92 (0.91-0.95), ICC for intra-observer reliability was 0.96 (0.94-0.97).CONCLUSIONS: We developed a digital X-ray software tool to determine vertebral rotation in AIS with a substantial concurrent validity and reliability, which may be useful for the follow-up of vertebral rotation in AIS patients. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</p

Mother and daughter with a SMARCE1 mutation resulting in a cervical clear cell meningioma at an identical location:illustrative cases

BACKGROUND: A rare meningioma subtype is a clear cell (CC) meningioma, which can be associated with a SMARCE1 gene mutation. Manifestation of a CC meningioma in the cervical spine is unusual. In the current case, both mother and daughter present with a CC meningioma at an identical cervical location. OBSERVATIONS: A 67-year-old patient with an intradural extramedullary mass at the level of C5 presented with progressive myelopathy. The mass was resected through a ventral approach by a two-level corpectomy with an expandable cage and instrumentation. The daughter of this patient appeared to have had an intradural extramedullary mass at C5 at the age of 20, which was resected through a posterior approach. Pathological investigation of both tumors revealed CC meningioma. Genetic testing of the daughter revealed a SMARCE1 mutation. LESSONS: It is of major importance to consider a SMARCE1 mutation in elderly presenting with a CC meningioma, which is still uncommon in current practice. This could lead to timely diagnostics in the succeeding generation. Complete resection of a CC meningioma is important because of the high recurrence rate. Routine follow-up should therefore be performed in the postoperative period. An anterior approach should be considered for a ventral cervical CC meningioma

Arthroplasty versus fusion in single-level cervical degenerative disc disease

Background There is ongoing debate about whether fusion or arthroplasty is superior in the treatment of single level cervical degenerative disc disease. Mainly because the intended advantage of arthroplasty over fusion, that is, the prevention of symptoms due to adjacent segment degeneration in the long term, is not confirmed yet. Until sufficient long-term results become available, it is important to know whether results of one of the two treatments are superior to the other in the first one to two years. Objectives To assess the effects of arthroplasty versus fusion for radiculopathy or myelopathy, or both due to single level cervical degenerative disc disease. Search methods We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs): CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBMR. Additionally, we searched the System for Information on Grey Literature (SIGLE), subheading Biological and Medical Sciences, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database on medical devices, and Clinicaltrials.gov to identify trials in progress. We also screened the reference list of all selected papers. Date of search: 25 May 2011. Selection criteria We included RCTs that directly compared any type of cervical fusion with any type of arthroplasty, with at least one year of follow-up. Primary outcomes were arm pain, neck pain, neck-related functional status, patient satisfaction, neurological outcome, and global health status. Secondary outcomes were the presence of (radiological) fusion, revision surgery at the treated level, secondary surgery on adjacent levels, segmental mobility of treated and adjacent levels, and work status. Data collection and analysis Study selection was performed independently by three review authors, and 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction were performed by two review authors. In case of missing data or insufficient information for a judgement about risk of bias, we tried to contact the study authors or the study sponsor. The data were entered into RevMan by one review author and subsequently checked by a second review author. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE. We analysed heterogeneity and performed sensitivity analyses for the pooled analyses. Main results We included nine studies (2400 participants), five of which had a low risk of bias. Eight of these studies were industry sponsored. The most important results showed low-quality evidence for a small but significant difference in alleviation of arm pain at one to two years in favour of arthroplasty (mean difference (MD) -1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.86 to -0.22; 100-point scale). A small study effect could not be ruled out for this outcome in the sensitivity analyses. This means that smaller studies (or small published subsets of larger studies) showed larger differences for this outcome, which may indicate publication bias. Also, moderate-quality evidence showed a small difference in neck-related functional status at one to two years in favour of arthroplasty (MD -2.79; 95% CI -4.73 to -0.85; 100-point scale) and a small difference in neurological outcome in favour of arthroplasty (risk ratio (RR) 1.05; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09). These two outcomes were robust to sensitivity analyses. For none of the primary outcomes, was a clinically relevant difference shown. Additionally, there was high-quality evidence for a large, statistically significant difference in segmental mobility at one to two years (measured as degrees segmental range of motion) at the treated level (MD 6.90; 95% CI 5.45 to 8.35). There was low-quality evidence that there was no statistically significant difference in secondary surgery at the adjacent levels at one to two years (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.02). The latter was not robust to sensitivity analyses. Authors' conclusions There was a tendency for clinical results to be in favour of arthroplasty; often these were statistically significant. However, differences in effect size were invariably small and not clinically relevant for all primary outcomes. Significance was often gained or lost in the varying sensitivity analyses, probably owing to the relatively small number of studies, in combination with the small differences that were found. Given the fact that all of the included studies were not blinded, this could be due to patient or carer expectations. However, at this time both treatments can be seen as valid options with respect to results at a maximum of one to two years. Given the current absence of truly long-term results, use of these mobile disc prostheses should still be limited to clinical trials. There was high-quality evidence that the goal of preservation of segmental mobility in arthroplasty was met. A statistically significant effect on the incidence of secondary symptoms at adjacent levels, the primary goal of arthroplasty over fusion, was not found at one to two years. If there was a protective effect, this should become clearer over time. A future update, when studies with 'truly long-term' results (five years or more) become available, should focus on this issue

Cervical vertebrae tracking in video-fluoroscopy using the normalized gradient field

\u3cp\u3eFor patients with neck problems valuable functional and diagnostic information can be obtained from a fluoroscopy video of a flexion-extension movement of the cervical spine. In most cases physicians have to manually extract the vertebrae, making the analysis of these video sequences tedious and time consuming. In this paper we propose an automatic fast and precise method for tracking cervical vertebrae. Our method relies only on a rough selection of template areas of each vertebra in a single frame of the video sequence. Compared to existing automated methods, no contours need to be extracted and no vertebra segmentation is required. Tracking is done with a normalized gradient field, using only the gradient orientations as features. Experimental results show that the algorithm is robust and able to track the vertebrae accurately even if they are partially occluded or if a disc prosthesis is present.\u3c/p\u3

Lumbar Intervertebral Motion in Healthy Male Participants:Protocol for a Motion Analysis During Flexion and Extension Cinematographic Recordings

Background: Physiological motion of the lumbar spine is a subject of interest for musculoskeletal health care professionals, as abnormal motion is believed to be related to lumbar conditions and complaints. Many researchers have described ranges of motion for the lumbar spine, but only a few have mentioned specific motion patterns of each individual segment during flexion and extension. These motion patterns mostly comprise the sequence of segmental initiation in sagittal rotation. However, an adequate definition of physiological motion of the lumbar spine is still lacking. The reason for this is the reporting of different ranges of motion and sequences of segmental initiation in previous studies. Furthermore, due to insufficient fields of view, none of these papers have reported on maximum flexion and extension motion patterns of L1 to S1. In the lower cervical spine, a consistent pattern of segmental contributions was recently described. In order to understand physiological motion of the lumbar spine, it is necessary to systematically study motion patterns, including the sequence of segmental contribution, of vertebrae L1 to S1 in healthy individuals during maximum flexion and extension. Objective: This study aims to define the lumbar spines' physiological motion pattern of vertebrae L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, and S1 by determining the sequence of segmental contribution and the sequence of segmental initiation of motion in sagittal rotation of each vertebra during maximum flexion and extension. The secondary endpoint will be exploring the possibility of analyzing the intervertebral horizontal and vertical translation of each vertebra during maximum flexion and extension. Methods: Cinematographic recordings will be performed on 11 healthy male participants, aged 18-25 years, without a history of spine problems. Cinematographic flexion and extension recordings will be made at two time points with a minimum 2-week interval in between. Results: The study has been approved by the local institutional medical ethical committee (Medical Research Ethics Committee of Zuyderland and Zuyd University of Applied Sciences) on September 24, 2018. Inclusion of participants will be completed in 2020. Conclusions: If successful, these physiological motion patterns can be compared with motion patterns of patients with lumbar conditions before or after surgery. Ultimately, researchers may be able to determine differences in biomechanics that can potentially be linked to physical complaints like low back pain