Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motion
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motion
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motion
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motion
2022
Overview
The assessment of spinal shape and mobility is of great importance for long-term therapy evaluation. As frequent radiation should be avoided, especially in children, non-invasive measurements have gained increasing importance. Their comparability between each other however stays elusive. Three non-invasive measurement tools have been compared to each other: Idiag M360, raster stereography and Epionics SPINE. 30 volunteers (15 females/15 males) have each been assessed by each system, investigating lumbar lordosis, thoracic kyphosis and spinal range-of-motion in the sagittal plane. Lumbar lordosis differed significantly (p < 0.001) between measurement devices but correlated significant to each other (Pearson’s r 0.5–0.6). Regarding thoracic kyphosis no significant difference and a high correlation (r = 0.8) could be shown between Idiag M360 and raster stereography. For lumbar mobility resulting measurements differed significantly and correlated only moderate between Idiag M360 and Epionics SPINE. Although the different measurement systems are moderate to high correlated to each other, their absolute agreement is limited. This might be explained by differences in their angle definition for lordotic and kyphotic angle, their measurement placement, or their capturing of mobility (static vs. dynamic assessment). Therefore, for long-term evaluation of the back profile, inter-modal comparison of values between different non-invasive devices should be avoided.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group,Nature Portfolio
Subject
