Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of measures of cervical sagittal rotation

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Lei-Sheng Jiang¹  Xiao-Dong Chen¹  Yue-Hua Yang¹  Jiang-Wei Chen¹  Sheng-Dan Jiang¹ 

[1] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, 1665 Kongjiang Road, Shanghai 200092, China

关键词: Radiographic analysis;    Cervical sagittal rotation;   

Others  :  1121995
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-332

 received in 2013-07-14, accepted in 2014-09-26,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Diagnosis and treatment decisions of cervical instability are made, in part, based on the clinician’s assessment of sagittal rotation on flexion and extension radiographs. The objective of this study is to evaluate the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of three measurement techniques in assessing cervical sagittal rotation.

Methods

Fifty lateral radiographs of patients with single-level cervical degenerative disc were selected and measured on two separate occasions by three spine surgeons using three different measurement techniques. Cervical sagittal rotation was measured using three different techniques.

Results

Intraclass correlation coefficients were most consistent for Method 2 (ICC 0.93-0.96) followed by Method 1 (ICC 0.88-0.91) and Method 3 (ICC 0.81-0.87). Intraobserver agreement (% of repeated measures within 0.5° of the original measurement) ranged between 76% and 96% for all techniques, with Method 2 showing the best agreement (92%-96%). Paired comparisons between observers varied considerably with interobserver reliability correlation coefficients ranging from 0.54 to 0.89. Method 2 showed the highest interobserver reliability coefficient (0.82, range 0.73-0.88). Method 2 was also more reliable for the classification of “instability”. Intraobserver percent agreements ranged from 94 to 98% for Method 2 versus 84% to 90% for Method 1 and 78% to 86% for Method 3, while interobserver percent agreements ranged from 90% to 98% for Method 2 versus 86% to 94% for Method 1 and 74% to 84% for Method 3.

Conclusions

Method 2 (measuring the angle from the inferior endplate of the vertebra above the degenerative disc and the inferior endplate of the vertebra below the degenerative disc) showed the best intraobserver and interobserver reliability overall in assessing cervical sagittal rotation.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Jiang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kristjansson E, Leivseth G, Brinckmann P, Frobin W: Increased sagittal plane segmental motion in the lower cervical spine in women with chronic whiplash-associated disorders, grades I-II: a case–control study using a new measurement protocol. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003, 28:2215-2221.
• [2]Dvorak J, Antinnes JA, Panjabi M, Loustalot D, Bonomo M: Age and gender related normal motion of the cervical spine. Spine 1992, 17:S393-S398.
• [3]Hino H, Abumi K, Kanayama M, Kaneda K: Dynamic motion analysis of normal and unstable cervical spines using cineradiography. An in vivo study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999, 24:163-168.
• [4]Buonocore E, Hartman JT, Nelson CL: Cineradiograms of cervical spine in diagnosis of soft-tissue injuries. JAMA 1966, 198:143-147.
• [5]Dvorak J, Panjabi MM, Grob D, Novotny JE, Antinnes JA: Clinical validation of functional flexion/extension radiographs of the cervical spine. Spine 1993, 18:120-127.
• [6]Dimnet J, Pasquet A, Krag MH, Panjabi MM: Cervical spine motion in the sagittal plane: kinematic and geometric parameters. J Biomech 1982, 15:959-969.
• [7]Knopp R, Parker J, Tashjian J, Ganz W: Defining radiographic criteria for flexion-extension studies of the cervical spine. Ann Emerg Med 2001, 38(1):31-35.
• [8]Dai L: Disc degeneration and cervical instability. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging with radiography. Spine 1998, 23:1734-1738.
• [9]Brown T, Reitman CA, Nguyen L, Hipp JA: Intervertebral motion after incremental damage to the posterior structures of the cervical spine. Spine 2005, 30:E503-E508.
• [10]Subramanian N, Reitman CA, Nguyen L, Hipp JA: Radiographic assessment and quantitative motion analysis of the cervical spine after serial sectioning of the anterior ligamentous structures. Spine 2007, 32:518-526.
• [11]Harris MB, Kronlage SC, Carboni PA, Robert KQ, Menmuir B, Ricciardi JE, Chutkan NB: Evaluation of the cervical spine in the polytrauma patient. Spine 2000, 25:2884-2891.
• [12]Wu SK, Jou JY, Lee HM, Chen HY, Su FC, Kuo LC: The reproducibility comparison of two intervertebral translation measurements in cervical flexion-extension. Spine Jin press
• [13]Kuklo TR, Potter BK, Schroeder TM, O'Brien MF: Comparison of manual and digital measurements in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2006, 31:1240-1246.
• [14]White AA III, Panjabi MM: The problem of clinical instability in the human spine: a systematic approach. In Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. 2nd edition. Edited by White AAIII, Panjabi MM. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott; 1990:277-378.
• [15]Penning L: Normal movements of the cervical spine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1978, 130:317-326.
• [16]Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Troyanovich SJ, Janik TJ, Holland B: Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method: which to choose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine 2000, 25:2072-2078.
• [17]Mofidi A, Tansey C, Mahapatra SR, Mirza HA, Eisenstein SM: Cervical spondylolysis, radiologic pointers of stability and acute traumatic as opposed to chronic spondylolysis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007, 20:473-479.
• [18]Shrout PE, Fleiss JL: Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979, 86:420-428.
• [19]Taylor M, Hipp JA, Gertzbein SD, Gopinath S, Reitman CA: Observer agreement in assessing flexion-extension X-rays of the cervical spine, with and without the use of quantitative measurements of intervertebral motion. Spine J 2007, 7:654-658.