Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Asher MA, Burton DC (2006) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: natural history and long term treatment effects. Scoliosis 1(1):2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Beekman CE, Hall V (1979) Variability of scoliosis measurement from spinal roentgenograms. Phys Ther 59(6):764–765

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):989–998

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):2052–2063

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):78–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fortin C, Feldman DE, Cheriet F, Labelle H (2010) Validity of a quantitative clinical measurement tool of trunk posture in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35(19):988–994. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cd2cd2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):271–278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):1371–1377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Greiner KA (2002) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: radiologic decision-making. Am Fam Physician 65(9):1817–1822

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1587–1592

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Hattori T, Sakaura H, Iwasaki M et al (2011) In vivo three-dimensional segmental analysis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 20(10):1745–1750. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1869-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kellis E, Adamou G, Tzilios G et al (2008) Reliability of spinal range of motion in healthy boys using a skin-surface device. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 31(8):570–576. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Knott P, Mardjetko S, Nance D et al (2006) Electromagnetic topographical technique of curve evaluation for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 31(24):911–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1540–1547

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):2548–2553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):768–770

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mangone M, Raimondi P, Paoloni M et al (2013) Vertebral rotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis calculated by radiograph and back surface analysis-based methods: correlation between the Raimondi method and rasterstereography. Eur Spine J 22:367–371. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2564-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):122–136

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):320–327

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):97–105

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Parent S, Labelle H, Skalli W et al (2002) Morphometric analysis of anatomic scoliotic specimens. Spine 27(21):2305–2311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pearcy M (1986) Measuring of back and spinal mobility. Clin Biomech 1(1):44–51. doi:10.1016/0268-0033(86)90037-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pearsall DJ, Reid JG, Hedden DM (1992) Comparison of three noninvasive methods for measuring scoliosis. Physical Ther 72(9):648–657

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):187–192

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pruijs JE, Hageman MA, Keessen W et al (1994) Variation in Cobb angle measurements in scoliosis. Skeletal Radiol 23(7):517–520

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Reamy BV, Slakey JB (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: review and current concepts. Am Fam Physician 64(1):111–116

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):488–494

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Saad KR, Colombo AS, Ribeiro AP et al (2012) Reliability of photogrammetry in the evaluation of the postural aspects of individuals with structural scoliosis. J Bodyw Mov Ther 16(2):210–216. doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2011.03.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Salisbury PJ, Porter RW (1987) Measurement of lumbar sagittal mobility a comparison of methods. Spine 12(2):190–193

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Stokes IA, Bevins TM, Lunn RA (1987) Back surface curvature and measurement of lumbar spinal motion. Spine 12(4):355–361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Vidal C, Ilharreborde B, Azoulay R (2013) Reliability of cervical lordosis and global sagittal spinal balance measurements in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 22:1362–1367. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2752-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Hacettepe University, 06100, Sıhhiye, Ankara, Turkey

    Ayse Livanelioglu & Tüzün Fırat

  2. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, State Hospital, Bandırma, Balıkesir, Turkey

    Fatma Kaya

  3. Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, 06100, Sıhhiye, Ankara, Turkey

    Vugar Nabiyev & Gokhan Demirkiran

Authors
  1. Ayse Livanelioglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fatma Kaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vugar Nabiyev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gokhan Demirkiran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tüzün Fırat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayse Livanelioglu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Livanelioglu, A., Kaya, F., Nabiyev, V. et al. The validity and reliability of “Spinal Mouse” assessment of spinal curvatures in the frontal plane in pediatric adolescent idiopathic thoraco-lumbar curves. Eur Spine J 25, 476–482 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3945-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3945-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation