Reliability analysis for manual measurement of coronal plane deformity in adolescent scoliosis. Are 30 x 90 cm plain films better than digitized small films?

Abstract

For several years, digitized small radiographs are used to measure Cobb angle in idiopathic scoliosis. The interobserver and intraobserver Cobb angle measurement variability associated with small radiographs were compared with measurement variability associated with the long-cassette radiographs. Twenty adolescent patients with a double major idiopathic scoliosis had erect full-spine p-A radiographs and Cobb angle measurements performed by eight different observers on a 30 x 90 cm plain-film radiograph and a digitized 14 x 42 cm image. Inter-observer and intra-observer reliability using each techniques were assessed using a paired t-test, Spearman rank correlation study and intraclass correlation coefficients. The angle variability between small film and plain-film measurements was assessed using the same methods. Intra-observer and inter-observer study showed good reliability using both techniques. The comparison between small films and plain-films measurements showed very good agreement with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 95% and confidence interval between 0.962 and 0.972. In our study, Cobb angle determination was not found to vary significantly with film size. The small film image used for full-spine radiographs in our institution allows manual Cobb angle measurements to be performed. A study is currently conducted in our institution to determine if a computer-assisted measurement method significantly improves Cobb angle measurements reliability in routine practice compared with manual measurements of Cobb angles on small films.

Fig. 1

Schematic representation of the respective size of 30 × 90 cm plain-films and small (14 × 42 cm) films

Fig. 2

Graphic representation of the difference between the two series of measures using 30 × 90 cm radiographs

Fig. 3

Graphic representation of the difference between the two series of measures using small radiographs

Fig. 4

Graphic representation of the difference between the measures using 30 × 90 cm and 14 × 42 cm radiographs