• Spine · Jun 2003

    Comparative Study

    Comparison of reliability between the Lenke and King classification systems for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using radiographs that were not premeasured.

    • B Stephens Richards, Daniel J Sucato, David E Konigsberg, and Jean A Ouellet.
    • Orthopedic Surgery, Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children, Dallas 75219, USA. steve.richards@tsrh.org
    • Spine. 2003 Jun 1;28(11):1148-56; discussion 1156-7.

    Study DesignMultisurgeon comparison of two radiographic scoliosis curve classification systems was performed.ObjectiveTo determine the reliability of the King and Lenke classifications systems for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using radiographs that had not been premeasured.Summary Of Background DataRecent studies introducing the new Lenke classification system for idiopathic scoliosis have reported reliability improved over that of the King classification system. This newer classification system evaluates three different parameters (curve type, lumbar modifier, and sagittal thoracic modifier) and then combines them. The reliability of both classification systems had been determined using radiographs in which all of the curves had been premeasured (recorded on the radiographs) before review by examiners. However, in a normal clinical situation, spine surgeons need to determine the Cobb angles independently, thus introducing another variable.MethodsOn two separate occasions, four orthopedic surgeons independently evaluated preoperative radiographs (standing posteroanterior, lateral, and two supine side-bending views) of 50 patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. All measurements had been removed on every radiograph before each evaluation. The results were determined by calculating the average percentage of intraobserver and interobserver agreement. Reliability was quantified using kappa statistics.ResultsThe King classification demonstrated good intraobserver and fair interobserver reliability. Intraobserver percentage of agreement averaged 83.5% (kappa coefficient, 0.81). Interobserver percentage of agreement averaged 68.0% (kappa coefficient, 0.61). All three parameters of the overall Lenke curve classification demonstrated fair reliability. Intraobserver percentage of agreement averaged 65.0% (kappa coefficient, 0.60). Interobserver percentage of agreement averaged 55.5% (kappa coefficient, 0.50). When the Lenke curve type was examined separately, intraobserver percentage of agreement averaged 81.5% (kappa coefficient, 0.76) and interobserver percentage of agreement averaged 71.5% (kappa coefficient, 0.64). The results for this variable (curve type) were similar to those for the King classification. For the Lenke lumbar modifier, the percentage of agreement and reliability were excellent. For the sagittal thoracic modifier, the percentage of agreement was good, but the kappa values were low because of an extreme imbalance in the grouping of hypokyphotic, normal, and hyperkyphotic spines.ConclusionsIn this study, with each investigator performing the radiographic measurements, the King classification was found to be better than had been reported recently. The Lenke classification system for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis was found to be less reliable than previously reported when the radiographs were premeasured. This was particularly true when all three parameters of this new classification system were combined. This difference in reliability of the Lenke classification between studies can be attributed to the additional variable of determining the Cobb measurements on each of the unmarked radiographs. Although this new classification system has limitations with respect to interobserver and intraobserver reliability, for planning operative treatment, it offers a more comprehensive radiographic evaluation of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis than previous systems.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    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..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.