Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 11, 2026
Clinical Efficacy of Ultrasound-Assisted Scoliosis-Specific Exercise in Mild-Grade Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
Published on: December 2, 2025
Assessing kyphosis with SpineScan: another attempt to reduce our dependence on radiography
Aharon S Finestone1, Gil Marcus, Yoram Anekstein
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, PO Beer Yaacov, Zerifin, Tel Aviv, 70300, Israel. asff@inter.net.il
Background Context:
Kyphosis management is mainly conservative, with annual examinations to assess angular progression. This includes physical examination and usually long spine X-rays, notorious for ionizing radiation. Several nonradiological instruments have been devised for this, but none have become popular. SpineScan, a programmed digital inclinometer, has been proved effective for screening kyphoscoliosis.
Purpose:
The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of SpineScan in monitoring kyphosis.
Study Design/Setting:
Prospective, observational, diagnostic accuracy study.
Patient Sample:
Twenty-eight subjects examined for kyphosis, with recent full-length lateral spine X-rays.
Methods:
Each subject was examined by two examiners. The technique involved the subject standing with arms flexed to 90° and then sliding the SpineScan from just below C7 to L2. Maximum X-ray kyphotic Cobb angle was compared with the SpineScan result. The study was institutional review board approved, and all patients signed an informed consent.
Results:
The mean Cobb angle of the 28 subjects on radiography was 51° ± 15°. The mean SpineScan angle of all trials of all examiners was 54° ± 12°. The difference between the two measurements was significantly different from zero (3.2° ± 9.4°, p<.0001) and not normally distributed. The difference was significantly affected by the Cobb angle, examiner, and interaction between Cobb and examiner (statistical significance for all p<.0001). Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for all examiners ranged between -16° and 22° and for separate examiners between -25° and 32°, far above the 5° preplanned error level.
Conclusions:
The results demonstrated that there is significant error in monitoring kyphosis with SpineScan. Even for a more modest indication including replacing radiography with SpineScan on alternate visits, the measurement was not accurate enough. Future research is necessary to find a nonradiographic method of kyphosis follow-up, possibly using a digitalized modification of one of the described instruments.
