Reprodutibilidade do método Cobb na medição da lordose lombar de crianças utilizando diferentes níveis vertebrais

Juliana Adami Sedrez; Bárbara Vendramini Marchetti; Eduardo Gonçalves Raupp; Bruna Nichele da Rosa; Rafael Paiva Ribeiro; Cláudia Tarragô Candotti

doi:10.5585/conssaude.v18n1.10609

Authors

Juliana Adami Sedrez Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4933-440X
Bárbara Vendramini Marchetti Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1099-8586
Eduardo Gonçalves Raupp Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2716-7065
Bruna Nichele da Rosa Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4590-0654
Rafael Paiva Ribeiro Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2696-9026
Cláudia Tarragô Candotti Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8676-9157

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5585/conssaude.v18n1.10609

Keywords:

Reproducibility of results. Child. Lumbosacral region. Evaluation studies as topic. Spine.

Abstract

Introduction: Radiography is the gold standard for spinal evaluation. However, there is inherent variability in the test and the evaluator. Objectives: (1) to compare lumbar lordosis angles using different vertebral reference levels (2) to verify the repeatability and reliabilities of the Cobb method for assessment of lumbar lordosis in children. Methods: Fifty children, aged 11.5 ± 2.6 years, participated in the study. The exams were evaluated independently by three evaluators, using the vertebral levels L1-L5 and L1-S1. The data were analyzed using ICC, SEM and MDC (a<0.05). Results: The Cobb angles, using L1-L5, are 11° to 13° lower than those using L1-S1. ICCs were excellent for repeatability and intra-rater reliability and ranged from excellent (L1-L5) to moderate (L1-S1) for inter-rater reliability. Conclusion: Both methodologies can be used by the same evaluator in the assessment of lumbar lordosis of children and adolescents. Furthermore, it is of fundamental importance that the evaluator know the differences between the available reference levels.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Kasten AP, da Rosa BN, Schmit EFD, Noll M, Candotti CT. Prevalence of postural deviations in the spine in schoolchildren: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Hum Growth Dev. 2017;27(1).

Da Rosa BN, Noll M, Sedrez JA, Furlanetto TS, Candotti CT. Monitoring the prevalence of postural changes in schoolchildren. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(2).

Dimeglio A, Canavese F. The growing spine: how spinal deformities influence normal spine and thoracic cage growth. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(1):64-70.

Sparrey CJ, Bailey JF, Safaee M, Clark AJ, Lafage V, Schwab F, et al. Etiology of lumbar lordosis and its pathophysiology: a review of the evolution of lumbar lordosis, and the mechanics and biology of lumbar degeneration. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(5):E1.

Negrini S, Aulisa A. SOSORT guidelines: orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth. Scoliosis J. 2012;7(3):7148-61.

Vrtovec T, Pernuš F, Likar B. A review of methods for quantitative evaluation of spinal curvature. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(5):593-607.

Damasceno LHF, Cararini SRG, Campos AD, Defino HLA. Lordose lombar: estudo dos valores angulares e da participação dos corpos vertebrais e discos intervertebrais. Acta Ortop Bras. 2006;14(4):193-8.

Hicks GE, George SZ, Nevitt MA, Cauley JA, Vogt MT. Measurement of lumbar lordosis: inter-rater reliability, minimum detectable change and longitudinal variation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19(7):501-6.

Lee JS, Goh TS, Park SH, Lee HS, Suh KT. Radiographic measurement reliability of lumbar lordosis in ankylosing spondylitis. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(4):813-8.

Polly DW, Kilkelly FX, McHale KA, Asplund LM, Mulligan M, Chang AS. Measurement of lumbar lordosis. Evaluation of intraobserver, interobserver, and technique variability. Vol. 21, Spine. 1996. p. 1530-6.

Furlanetto TS, Sedrez JA, Candotti CT, Loss JF. Reference values for Cobb angles when evaluating the spine in the sagittal plane: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Motricidade. 2018;14(2-3):115-28.

Tolo V. The lower extremity. In: Publishers L-R, editor. Pediatric orthopaedics. 3rd ed. Philadelphia; 1996. p. 1047-81.

Vialle R, Levassor N, Rillardon L, Templier A, Skalli W, Guigui P. Radiographic analysis of the sagittal alignment and balance of the spine in asymptomatic subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(2):260-7.

Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J. Classification of the Normal Variation in the Sagittal Alignment of the Human Lumbar Spine and Pelvis in the Standing Position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(3):2005.

Roussouly P, Nnadi C. Sagittal plane deformity: an overview of interpretation and management. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(11):1824-36.

Schwab FJ, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy J, Lafage V. Adult Spinal Deformity — Postoperative Standing Imbalance Assessing Alignment and Planning Corrective Surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(25):2224-31.

Mac-Thiong JM, Labelle H, Berthonnaud E, Betz RR, Roussouly P. Sagittal spinopelvic balance in normal children and adolescents. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(2):227-34.

Mac-Thiong JM, Labelle H, Roussouly P. Pediatric sagittal alignment. Eur Spine J. 2011;20 Suppl 5:586-90.

Cil A, Yazici M, Uzumcugil A, Kandemir U, Alanay A, Alanay Y, et al. The evolution of sagittal segmental alignment of the spine during childhood. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(1):93-100.

Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998;17(Apr 1997):101-10.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(22).

Haley SM, Fragala-Pinkham MA. Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2006;86(5):735-43.

Bruton A, Conway JH, Holgate ST. Reliability: what is it, and how is it measured. Physiotherapy. 2000;86(2):94-9.

Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420-8.

Souza AC de, Alexandre NMC, Guirardello E de B. Propriedades psicométricas na avaliação de instrumentos: avaliação da confiabilidade e da validade. Epidemiol Serv Saúde. 2017;26(3):649-59.

Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Janik T, Holland B. Radiographic Analysis of Lumbar Lordosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(11):235-42.

Chen Y-L. Vertebral Centriod Measurement of Lumbar Lordosis Compared With the Cobb Technique. 1999. p. 1786-90.

Hong JY, Suh SW, Modi HN, Hur CY, Song HR, Park JH. Reliability analysis for radiographic measures of lumbar lordosis in adult scoliosis: a case-control study comparing 6 methods. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(9):1551-7.

Genant HK, Li J, Wu CY, Shepherd JA. Vertebral fractures in osteoporosis: a new method for clinical assessment. J Clin Densitom. 2000;3(3):281-90.