Reliability of computer-assisted lumbar intervertebral measurements using a novel vertebral motion analysis system
Matthew S Yeager1, Daniel J Cook1, Boyle C Cheng2
1Department of Neurosurgery, Allegheny General Hospital, 420 East North Ave., Suite 302, Pittsburgh, PA 15212, USA.
Background Context:
Traditional methods for the evaluation of in vivo spine kinematics introduce significant measurement variability. Digital videofluoroscopic techniques coupled with computer-assisted measurements have been shown to reduce such error, as well as provide detailed information about spinal motion otherwise unobtainable by standard roentgenograms. Studies have evaluated the precision of computer-assisted fluoroscopic measurements; however, a formal clinical evaluation and comparison with manual methods is unavailable. Further, it is essential to establish reliability of novel measurements systems compared with standard techniques.
Purpose:
To determine the repeatability and reproducibility of sagittal lumbar intervertebral measurements using a new system for the evaluation of lumbar spine motion.
Study Design:
Reliability evaluation of digitized manual versus computer-assisted measurements of the lumbar spine using motion sequences from a videofluoroscopic technique.
Patient Sample:
A total of 205 intervertebral levels from 61 patients were retrospectively evaluated in this study.
Outcome Measures:
Coefficient of repeatability (CR), limits of agreement (LOA), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; type 3,1), and standard error of measurement.
Methods:
Intervertebral rotations and translations (IVR and IVT) were each measured twice by three physicians using the KineGraph vertebral motion analysis (VMA) system and twice by three different physicians using a digitized manual technique. Each observer evaluated all images independently. Intra- and interobserver statistics were compiled based on the methods of Bland-Altman (CR, LOA) and Shrout-Fleiss (ICC, standard error of measurement).
Results:
The VMA measurements demonstrated substantially more precision compared with the manual technique. Intraobserver measurements were the most reliable, with a CR of 1.53 (manual, 8.28) for IVR, and 2.20 (manual, 11.75) for IVT. The least reliable measurements were interobserver IVR and IVT, with a CR of 2.15 (manual, 9.88) and 3.90 (manual, 12.43), respectively. The ICCs and standard error results followed the same pattern.
Conclusions:
The VMA system markedly reduced variability of lumbar intervertebral measurements compared with a digitized manual analysis. Further, computer-assisted fluoroscopic imaging techniques demonstrate precision within the range of computer-assisted X-ray analysis techniques.
