VALUE OF SMART PHONE Scoliometer SOFTWARE IN OBTAINING OPTIMAL LUMBAR LORDOSIS DURING L<sub>4</sub>-S<sub>1</sub> FUSION SURGERY_Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Authors：

YUWeibo ^1,2 ,  LIANGDe ¹ , YELinqiang ^1,2 , JIANGXiaobing ¹ , YAOZhensong ¹ , TANGJingjing ¹ , TANGYongchao ¹

1. Department of Spinal Surgery, No. 1 Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou Guangdong, 510405, P. R. China;
2. The First School of Clinic Medicine, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine;

Corresponding author：

LIANGDe, Email: spinedrjxb@sina.com

Keywords：

Scoliometer software; L₄-S₁ fusion surgery; Cobb angle; Pelvic incidence; Lumbar lordosis

DOI：

10.7507/1002-1892.20150271

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To investigate the value of smart phone Scoliometer software in obtaining optimal lumbar lordosis (LL) during L₄-S₁ fusion surgery. Methods Between November 2014 and February 2015, 20 patients scheduled for L₄-S₁ fusion surgery were prospectively enrolled the study. There were 8 males and 12 females, aged 41-65 years (mean, 52.3 years). The disease duration ranged from 6 months to 6 years (mean, 3.4 years). Before operation, the pelvic incidence (PI) and Cobb angle of L₄-S₁ (CobbL₄-S₁) were measured on lateral X-ray film of lumbosacral spine by PACS system; and the ideal CobbL₄-S₁ was then calculated according to previously published methods [(PI+9°)×70%]. Subsequently, intraoperative CobbL₄-S₁ was monitored by the Scoliometer software and was defined as optimal while it was less than 5° difference compared with ideal CobbL₄-S₁. Finally, the CobbL₄-S₁ was measured by the PACS system after operation and the consistency was compared between Scoliometer software and PACS system to evaluate the accuracy of this software. In addition, value of this method in obtaining optimal LL was validated by comparing the difference between ideal CobbL₄-S₁ and preoperative one with that between ideal CobbL₄-S₁ and postoperative one. Results The CobbL₄-S₁ was (36.17±1.53)° for ideal one, (22.57±5.50)° for preoperative one, (32.25±1.46)° for intraoperative one measured by Scoliometer software, and (34.43±1.72)° for postoperative one, respectively. The observed intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was excellent [ICC=0.96, 95% confidence interval (0.93, 0.97)] and the mean absolute difference (MAD) was low (MAD=1.23) between Scoliometer software and PACS system. The deviation between ideal CobbL₄-S₁ and postoperative CobbL₄-S₁ was (2.31±0.23)°, which was significantly lower than the deviation between ideal CobbL₄-S₁ and preoperative CobbL₄-S₁ (13.60±1.85)° (t=6.065, P=0.001). Conclusion Scoliometer software can help surgeon obtain the optimal LL and deserve further dissemination.

Citation： YUWeibo, LIANGDe, YELinqiang, JIANGXiaobing, YAOZhensong, TANGJingjing, TANGYongchao. VALUE OF SMART PHONE Scoliometer SOFTWARE IN OBTAINING OPTIMAL LUMBAR LORDOSIS DURING L₄-S₁ FUSION SURGERY. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2015, 29(10): 1249-1252. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.20150271 Copy

1.	Lazennec JY, Ramaré S, Arafati N, et al. Sagittal alignment in lumbosacral fusion:relations between radiological parameters and pain. Eur Spine, 2000, 9(1):47-55.
2.	Schwab FJ, Smith VA, Biserni M, et al. Adult scoliosis:a quantitative radiographic and clinicalanalysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2002, 27(4): 387-392.
3.	Hikata T, Watanabe K, Fujita N, et al. Impact of sagittal spinopelvic alignment on clinical outcomes after decompression surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis without coronal imbalance. J Neurosurg Spine, 2015.[Epub ahead of print].
4.	Liu H, Li S, Wang J, et al. An analysis of spinopelvic sagittal alignment after lumbar lordosis reconstruction for degenerative spinal diseases:how much balance can be obtained? Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2014, 39(26 Spec No.):B52-59.
5.	Phan K, Rao PJ, Scherman DB, et al. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion for sagittal balance correction and spinal deformity. J Clin Neurosci, 2015.[Epub ahead of print].
6.	Schwab F, Lafage V, Patel A, et al. Sagittal plane considerations and the pelvis in the adult patient. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2009, 34(17): 1828-1833.
7.	Janik TJ, Harrison DD, Janik TJ, et al. Can the sagittal lumbar curvature be closely approximated by an ellipse? J Orthop Res, 1998, 16(6):766-770.
8.	Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations:uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull, 1979, 86(2):420-428.
9.	Duval-Beaupère G, Robain G. Visualization on full spine radiographs of the anatomical connections of the centres of the segmental body mass supported byeach vertebra and measured in vivo. Int Orthop, 1987, 11(3):261-269.
10.	Legaye J, Duval-Beaupère G. Sagittal plane alignment of the spine and gravity:a radiological and clinical evaluation. Acta Orthop Belg, 2005, 71(2):213-220.
11.	Duval-Beaupère G, Schmidt C, Cosson P. A barycentremetric study of the sagittal shape of spine and pelvis:the conditions required for an economic standing position. Ann Biomed Eng, 1992, 20(4):451-462.
12.	Duval-Beaupère, Marty C, Barthel F, et al. Sagittal profile of the spine prominent part of the pelvis. Stud Health Technol Inform, 2002, 88:47-64.
13.	Vaz G, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, et al. Sagittal morphology and equilibrium of pelvis and spine. Eur Spine J, 2002, 11(1):80-87.
14.	Troyanovich SJ, Cailliet R, Janik TJ, et al. Radiographic mensuration characteristics of the sagittal lumbar spine from a normal population with a method to synthesize prior studies of lordosis. Spinal Disord, 1997, 10(5):380-386.
15.	Been E, Barash A, Pessah H, et al. A new look at the geometry of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010, 35(20):1014-1017.
16.	Balg F, Juteau M, Theoret C, et al. Validity and reliability of the iPhone to measure rib hump in scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop, 2014, 34(8):774-779.
17.	Driscoll M, Fortier-Tougas C, Labelle H, et al. Evaluation of an apparatus to be combined with a smartphone for the early detection of spinal deformities. Scoliosis, 2014, 9:10-16.
18.	Qiao J, Xu L, Zhu Z, et al. Inter-and intraobserver reliability assessment of the axial trunk rotation:manual versus smartphoneaided measurement tools. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2014, 15:343-352.

1. Lazennec JY, Ramaré S, Arafati N, et al. Sagittal alignment in lumbosacral fusion:relations between radiological parameters and pain. Eur Spine, 2000, 9(1):47-55.
2. Schwab FJ, Smith VA, Biserni M, et al. Adult scoliosis:a quantitative radiographic and clinicalanalysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2002, 27(4): 387-392.
3. Hikata T, Watanabe K, Fujita N, et al. Impact of sagittal spinopelvic alignment on clinical outcomes after decompression surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis without coronal imbalance. J Neurosurg Spine, 2015.[Epub ahead of print].
4. Liu H, Li S, Wang J, et al. An analysis of spinopelvic sagittal alignment after lumbar lordosis reconstruction for degenerative spinal diseases:how much balance can be obtained? Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2014, 39(26 Spec No.):B52-59.
5. Phan K, Rao PJ, Scherman DB, et al. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion for sagittal balance correction and spinal deformity. J Clin Neurosci, 2015.[Epub ahead of print].
6. Schwab F, Lafage V, Patel A, et al. Sagittal plane considerations and the pelvis in the adult patient. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2009, 34(17): 1828-1833.
7. Janik TJ, Harrison DD, Janik TJ, et al. Can the sagittal lumbar curvature be closely approximated by an ellipse? J Orthop Res, 1998, 16(6):766-770.
8. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations:uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull, 1979, 86(2):420-428.
9. Duval-Beaupère G, Robain G. Visualization on full spine radiographs of the anatomical connections of the centres of the segmental body mass supported byeach vertebra and measured in vivo. Int Orthop, 1987, 11(3):261-269.
10. Legaye J, Duval-Beaupère G. Sagittal plane alignment of the spine and gravity:a radiological and clinical evaluation. Acta Orthop Belg, 2005, 71(2):213-220.
11. Duval-Beaupère G, Schmidt C, Cosson P. A barycentremetric study of the sagittal shape of spine and pelvis:the conditions required for an economic standing position. Ann Biomed Eng, 1992, 20(4):451-462.
12. Duval-Beaupère, Marty C, Barthel F, et al. Sagittal profile of the spine prominent part of the pelvis. Stud Health Technol Inform, 2002, 88:47-64.
13. Vaz G, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, et al. Sagittal morphology and equilibrium of pelvis and spine. Eur Spine J, 2002, 11(1):80-87.
14. Troyanovich SJ, Cailliet R, Janik TJ, et al. Radiographic mensuration characteristics of the sagittal lumbar spine from a normal population with a method to synthesize prior studies of lordosis. Spinal Disord, 1997, 10(5):380-386.
15. Been E, Barash A, Pessah H, et al. A new look at the geometry of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010, 35(20):1014-1017.
16. Balg F, Juteau M, Theoret C, et al. Validity and reliability of the iPhone to measure rib hump in scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop, 2014, 34(8):774-779.
17. Driscoll M, Fortier-Tougas C, Labelle H, et al. Evaluation of an apparatus to be combined with a smartphone for the early detection of spinal deformities. Scoliosis, 2014, 9:10-16.
18. Qiao J, Xu L, Zhu Z, et al. Inter-and intraobserver reliability assessment of the axial trunk rotation:manual versus smartphoneaided measurement tools. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2014, 15:343-352.

Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

VALUE OF SMART PHONE Scoliometer SOFTWARE IN OBTAINING OPTIMAL LUMBAR LORDOSIS DURING L₄-S₁ FUSION SURGERY

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content

Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

VALUE OF SMART PHONE Scoliometer SOFTWARE IN OBTAINING OPTIMAL LUMBAR LORDOSIS DURING L4-S1 FUSION SURGERY

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content

VALUE OF SMART PHONE Scoliometer SOFTWARE IN OBTAINING OPTIMAL LUMBAR LORDOSIS DURING L₄-S₁ FUSION SURGERY