Characterizing the shape of the lumbar spine using an active shape model: Reliability and precision of the method

Spine

Volumn 33, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 807-813

  Meakin, Judith R ^a   Gregory, Jennifer S ^a   Smith, Francis W ^a   Gilbert, Fiona J ^a   Aspden, Richard M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Active Shape Model; Lordosis; Lumbar spine; Positional MRI

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; HUMAN; LORDOSIS; LUMBAR SPINE; MALE; MEASUREMENT; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; VERTEBRA BODY;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LORDOSIS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSTURE; REFERENCE VALUES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 41749122417     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816949e6     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Chernukha KV, Daffner RH, Reigel DH. Lumbar lordosis measurement, a new method versus Cobb technique. Spine 1998;23:74-9.
2. Janik TJ, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, et al. Can the sagittal lumbar curvature be closely approximated by an ellipse? J Orthop Res 1998;16:766-70.
3. Troyanovich SJ, Harrison DE, Harrison DD, et al. A further analysis of the reliability of the posterior tangent lateral lumbar radiographic mensuration procedure: concurrent validity of computer aided X-ray digitization. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1998;21:460-7.
4. Chen YL. Vertebral centroid measurement of lumbar lordosis compared with the Cobb technique. Spine 1999;24:1786-90.
5. Polly DW, Kilkelly FX, McHale KA, et al. Measurement of lumbar lordosis, evaluation of intraobserver, interobserver, and technique variability. Spine 1996;21:1530-5.
6. Schuler TC, Subach BR, Branch CL, et al, and the Lumbar Spine Study Group. Segmental lumbar lordosis, manual versus computer-assisted measurement using seven different techniques. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004;17:372-9.
7. Hicks GE, George SZ, Nevitt MA, et al. Measurement of lumbar lordosis: inter-rater reliability, minimum detectable change and longitudinal variation. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006;19:501-6.
8. Pinel-Giroux FM, Mac-Thiong JM, de Guise JA, et al. Computerized assessment of sagittal curvatures of the spine, comparison between Cobb and tangent circles techniques. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006;19:507-12.
9. Wood KB, Kos P, Schendel M, et al. Effect of patient position on the sagittal-plane profile of the thoracolumbar spine. J Spinal Disord 1996;9:165-9.
10. Cootes TF, Taylor CJ. Anatomical statistical models and their role in feature extraction. Br J Radiol 2004;77:S133-S139.
11. Smyth PP, Taylor CJ, Adams JE. Vertebral shape: automatic measurement with active shape models. Radiology 1999;211:571-8.
12. Roberts M, Cootes TF, Adams JE. Vertebral morphometry, semiautomatic determination of detailed shape from dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry images using active appearance models. Invest Radiol 2006;41:849-59.
13. Hirasawa Y, Bashir WA, Smith FW, et al. Postural changes of the dural sac in the lumbar spines of symptomatic individuals using positional stand-up magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 2007;32:E136-E140.
14. Cootes TF. Modelling and search software. University of Manchester website. http://www.isbe.man.ac.uk/~bim/software/am_tools_doc/index.html. Accessed March 2007.
15. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement error. BMJ 1996;313:744.
16. Jackson RP, Kanemura T, Kawakami N, et al. Lumbopelvic lordosis and pelvic balance on repeated standing lateral radiographs of adult volunteers and untreated patients with constant low back pain. Spine 2000;25:575-86.
17. Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, et al. Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine 2005;30:346-53.
18. Meakin JR, Aspden RM, Smith FW, et al. The effect of load on the shape of the lumbar spine. J Biomech 2007;40(suppl 2):S270.
19. Gregory JS, Stewart A, Undrill PE, et al. Bone shape, structure, and density as determinants of osteoporotic hip fracture: a pilot study investigating the combination of risk factors. Invest Radiol 2005;40:591-7.
20. Dar FH, Meakin JR, Aspden RM. Statistical methods in finite element analysis. J Biomech 2002;35:1155-61.
21. Espino DM, Meakin JR, Hukins DWL, et al. Stochastic finite element analysis of biological systems: comparison of a simple intervertebral disc model with experimental results. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 2003;6:243-8.
22. Meakin JR, Shrive NG, Frank CB, et al. Finite element analysis of the meniscus: the influence of geometry and material properties on its behaviour. Knee 2003;10:33-41.
23. van der Geest RJ, Lelieveldt BPF, Anglié E, et al. Evaluation of a new method for automated detection of left ventricular boundaries in time series of magnetic resonance images using an active appearance motion model. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2004;6:609-17.