-
Comparative Study
A comparative study of axis-line-distance technique and Cobb method on assessing the curative effect on scoliosis.
- Jia-Wei He, Guang-Hui Bai, Xin-Jian Ye, Kun Liu, Zhi-Han Yan, Xian Zhang, Xiang-Yang Wang, Yi-Xing Huang, and Zhi-Kang Yu.
- Radiology Department, The 2nd Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, #109 Xue Yuan Xi Lu, Wenzhou, China.
- Eur Spine J. 2012 Jun 1;21(6):1075-81.
PurposeTo compare the axis-line-distance technique (ALDT) and Cobb method for therapeutic evaluation of scoliosis.MethodsFifty-seven patients with scoliosis were treated in our hospital, 47 underwent conservative bracing therapy and 10 underwent surgery. Based on 171 full-spine X-ray images obtained from these 57 cases before treatment, during conservative treatment or surgery, and at final follow-up after removing the brace or after surgery, two radiologists independently measured and calculated the correction rate during treatment and at final follow-up and the rate of correction loss after treatment with the ALDT and Cobb methods. Paired t-test and correlation analysis were performed.ResultsBased on the ALDT, the lateral deviations of the apical vertebrae before treatment, during treatment, and at final follow-up were 31 ± 14 mm, 16 ± 8 mm, and 20 ± 8 mm, respectively; the correction rates during treatment and at final follow-up were 48.7 ± 21.2% and 37.6 ± 14.2%, respectively, and the rate of correction loss after treatment was 11.3 ± 6.5%. The Cobb angles of scoliosis before treatment, during treatment, and at final follow-up were 34 ± 14°, 19 ± 7°, and 22 ± 6°, respectively; the correction rates during treatment and at final follow-up were 44.4 ± 17.3% and 33.9 ± 14.4%, respectively, and the rate of correction loss after treatment was 11.4 ± 4.3%. Calculation of the correction rate during treatment differed significantly between the two radiologists when using the Cobb method (P < 0.05); their calculations of the correction rate and rate of correction loss were not different (P > 0.05). The measurement data of the two radiologists using the Cobb method showed a weak to moderate correlation (r = 0.49, 0.57, and 0.51, respectively). When using the ALDT, there were no significant differences between the radiologists in their measurements of the correction rate during and after treatment (P > 0.05) or in the rate of correction loss. The measurement data of the two radiologists using the ALDT showed a good to excellent correlation (r = 0.92, 0.93, and 0.90, respectively).ConclusionThe ALDT is better than the Cobb method for therapeutic evaluation of scoliosis during treatment and at follow-up visits.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.