Reproducibility of measuring the shape and three-dimensional position of cervical vertebrae in upright position using the EOS stereoradiography system

Spine

Volumn 32, Issue 23, 2007, Pages 2569-2572

  Rousseau, Marc Antoine ^a,b   Laporte, Sébastien ^a   Chavary Bernier, Estelle ^a   Lazennec, Jean Yves ^a   Skalli, W ^a  

^a LABORATOIRE DE BIOMÉCANIQUE   (France)

^b NONE   (France)

Author keywords

Cervical spine; EOS; Reproducibility; Stereoradiography; Three dimensional reconstruction

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPINE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; STANDING; STEREORADIOGRAPHY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

ADULT; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; POSTURE; RADIOGRAPHY; REFERENCE VALUES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 35848937946     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318158cba2     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Singh K, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ. Assessing the potential impact of total disc arthroplasty on surgeon practice patterns in North America. Spine J 2004;4(suppl):195-201.
2. Pickett GE, Rouleau JP, Duggal N. Kinematic analysis of the cervical spine following implantation of an artificial cervical disc. Spine 2005;30:1949-54.
3. Lind B, Sihlbom H, Nordwall A, et al. Normal range of motion of the cervical spine. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989;70:692-5.
4. Dvorak J, Panjabi MM, Novotny JE, et al. In vivo flexion/extension of the normal cervical spine. J Orthop Res 1991;9:828-34.
5. Dvorak J, Panjabi MM, Grob D, et al. Clinical validation of functional flexion/extension radiographs of the cervical spine. Spine 1993;18:120-7.
6. Ordway NR, Seymour RJ, Donelson RG, et al. Cervical flexion, extension, protrusion, and retraction: a radiographic segmental analysis. Spine 1999;24:240-7.
7. Hino H, Abumi K, Kanayama M, et al. Dynamic motion analysis of normal and unstable cervical spines using cineradiography: an in vivo study. Spine 1999;24:163-8.
8. Frobin W, Leivseth G, Biggemann M, et al. Sagittal plane segmental motion of the cervical spine: a new precision measurement protocol and normal motion data of healthy adults. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2002;17:21-31.
9. Leivseth G, Kolstad F, Nygaard OP, et al. Comparing precision of distortion-compensated and stereophotogrammetric Roentgen analysis when monitoring fusion in the cervical spine. Eur Spine J 2006;15:774-9.
10. Champain S, Benchikh K, Nogier A, et al. Validation of new clinical quantitative analysis software applicable in spine orthopaedic studies. Eur Spine J 2006;15:982-91.
11. Richter M, Wilke HJ, Kluger P, et al. Load-displacement properties of the normal and injured lower cervical spine in vitro. Eur Spine J 2000;9:104-8.
12. Panjabi MM, Crisco JJ, Vasavada A, et al. Mechanical properties of the human cervical spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. Spine 2001;26:2692-700.
13. Puttlitz CM, Rousseau MA, Xu Z, et al. Intervertebral disc replacement maintains cervical spine kinetics. Spine 2004;29:2809-14.
14. Wheeldon JA, Pintar FA, Knowles S, et al. Experimental flexion/extension data corridors for validation of finite element models of the young, normal cervical spine. J Biomech 2006;39:375-80.
15. Penning L, Wilmink JT. Rotation of the cervical spine: a CT study in normal subjects. Spine 1987;12:732-8.
16. Mimura M, Moriya H, Watanabe T, et al. Three-dimensional motion analysis of the cervical spine with special reference to the axial rotation. Spine 1989;14:1135-9.
17. Ishii T, Mukai Y, Hosono N, et al. Kinematics of the upper cervical spine in rotation: in vivo three-dimensional analysis. Spine 2004;29:E139-44.
18. Ishii T, Mukai Y, Hosono N, et al. Kinematics of the subaxial cervical spine in rotation in vivo three-dimensional analysis. Spine 2004;29:2826-31.
19. Ishii T, Mukai Y, Hosono N, et al. Kinematics of the cervical spine in lateral bending: in vivo three-dimensional analysis. Spine 2006;31:155-60.
20. Bogduk N, Mercer S. Biomechanics of the cervical spine: I. Normal kinematics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2000;15:633-48.
21. Mitulescu A, Semaan I, de Guise J, et al. Validation of the Non Stereo Corresponding Points (N.S.C.P.) stereoradiographic 3D reconstruction technique. Med Biol Eng Comput 2001;39:152-8.
22. Mitton D, Landry C, Veron S, et al. 3D reconstruction method from biplanar radiography using non-stereocorresponding points and elastic deformable meshes. Med Biol Eng Comput 2000;38:133-9.
23. Laporte S, Skalli W, de Guise JA, et al. A biplanar reconstruction method based on 2D and 3D contours: application to the distal femur. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 2003;6:1-6.
24. Dumas R, Mitton D, Laporte S, et al. Explicit calibration method and specific device designed for stereoradiography. J Biomech 2003;36:827-34.
25. Dumas R, Steib JP, Mitton D, et al. Three-dimensional quantitative segmental analysis of scoliosis corrected by the in situ contouring technique. Spine 2003;28:1158-62.
26. Pomero V, Mitton D, Laporte S, et al. Fast accurate stereoradiographic 3D-reconstruction of the spine using a combined geometric and statistic model. Clin Biomech 2004;19:240-7.
27. Mitulescu A, Skalli W, Mitton D, et al. Three-dimensional surface rendering reconstruction of scoliotic vertebrae using a non stereo-corresponding points technique. Eur Spine J 2002;11:344-52.
28. Dumas R, Le Bras A, Champain N, et al. Validation of the relative 3D orientation of vertebrae reconstructed by bi-planar radiography. Med Eng Phys 2004;26:415-22.
29. Dubousset J, Charpak G, Dorion I, et al. A new 2D and 3D imaging approach to musculoskeletal physiology and pathology with low-dose radiation and the standing position: the EOS system. Bull Acad Natl Med 2005;189:287-97; discussion 297-300.
30. Kalifa G, Charpak Y, Maccia C, et al. Evaluation of a new low-dose digital x-ray device: first dosimetric and clinical results in children. Pediatr Radiol 1998;28:557-61.
31. Silber JS, Lipetz JS, Hayes VM, et al. Measurement variability in the assessment of sagittal alignment of the cervical spine: a comparison of the gore and Cobb methods. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004;17:301-5.