PTJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


PHYS THER
Vol. 72, No. 9, September 1992, pp. 648-657

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pearsall, D.
Right arrow Articles by Hedden, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pearsall, D.
Right arrow Articles by Hedden, D.

Article

Comparison of three noninvasive methods for measuring scoliosis

DJ Pearsall, JG Reid, and DM Hedden

Department of Anatomy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

The premise behind most noninvasive techniques for the measurement of scoliotic conditions of the spine is that the lateral distortion of the spine relates directly to transverse rib cage deformity within the transverse plane. The focus of this study was to examine this assumption by comparing different noninvasive methods for the assessment of scoliotic curves. The three techniques examined were (1) use of the Scoliometer (SCOL), (2) use of the back-contour device (BCD), and (3) use of moire topographic imaging (MTI). Fourteen subjects (10 female, 4 male) with idiopathic adolescent scoliosis were measured. Posterior-anterior radiographs were obtained for the clinical assessment of all subjects and were subsequently used to determine Cobb angles. Significant correlations between axial trunk rotation and Cobb-angle measurements were observed in the thoracic region (MTI, r = .80, df = 10, P less than .005; BCD, r = .70, df = 10, P less than .025; SCOL, r = .59, df = 10, P less than .025) but were not found within the lumbar region (MTI, r = .42; BCD, r = .17; SCOL, r = .20). Factors other than trunk deformity, such as the posture assumed by the subject during measurement, may have influenced axial trunk rotation. Hence, the techniques appear to provide valid estimations of lateral curvature of the spine in the thoracic region of the trunk but not the lumbar region. The results suggest that the measurement techniques cannot be used interchangeably in clinical recording.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1992 by the American Physical Therapy Association.