Cargando…

Comparison of three methods for measuring C0-1 angles and C0-2 angles

BACKGROUND: The mutual compensatory relationship between the upper cervical sagittal alignment and the lower cervical sagittal alignment has been repeatedly reported. However, the evaluation of the upper cervical sagittal parameters are varied in previous studies. This retrospective study was perfor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xu, Shicai, Ma, Fei, Tang, Chao, Liao, Yehui, Tang, Qiang, Chen, Shiyu, Wang, Qing, Zhong, Dejun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10111783/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37069521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06402-0
_version_ 1785027517255516160
author Xu, Shicai
Ma, Fei
Tang, Chao
Liao, Yehui
Tang, Qiang
Chen, Shiyu
Wang, Qing
Zhong, Dejun
author_facet Xu, Shicai
Ma, Fei
Tang, Chao
Liao, Yehui
Tang, Qiang
Chen, Shiyu
Wang, Qing
Zhong, Dejun
author_sort Xu, Shicai
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The mutual compensatory relationship between the upper cervical sagittal alignment and the lower cervical sagittal alignment has been repeatedly reported. However, the evaluation of the upper cervical sagittal parameters are varied in previous studies. This retrospective study was performed to compare three methods for measuring the upper cervical sagittal parameters. METHODS: A total of 263 individuals with standing neutral lateral cervical radiographs were included in this study. The Frankfort horizontal line (FHL), foramen magnum line (FML), and McGregor line (ML) were separately used as the reference lines for measuring the C0-1 angle and C0-2 angle. Intraclass correlation (ICC) values were used to compare the consistency and repeatability of the three methods. Pearson’s correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation between the sagittal parameters of the upper and lower cervical spine. RESULTS: The interobserver and intraobserver ICC values obtained from using the ML to measure the C0-1 angle and C0-2 angle were both higher than those obtained from using the FML or FHL. The C0-1 angle and C0-2 angle measured by the three methods were negatively correlated with the C2-7 angle. The upper sagittal parameters measured by the FHL were the most correlated with the C2-7 angle. The correlation between the C0-1 angle measured by the three methods and the C0-2 angle measured with the FHL or ML and the C2-7 angle increased with aging. CONCLUSION: Use of the ML to measure the C0-1 angle and C0-2 angle has higher reliability. Use of the FHL to measure the sagittal alignment of the upper cervical spine is more suitable for evaluating the compensation mechanism between the upper and the lower cervical spine.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10111783
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101117832023-04-19 Comparison of three methods for measuring C0-1 angles and C0-2 angles Xu, Shicai Ma, Fei Tang, Chao Liao, Yehui Tang, Qiang Chen, Shiyu Wang, Qing Zhong, Dejun BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research BACKGROUND: The mutual compensatory relationship between the upper cervical sagittal alignment and the lower cervical sagittal alignment has been repeatedly reported. However, the evaluation of the upper cervical sagittal parameters are varied in previous studies. This retrospective study was performed to compare three methods for measuring the upper cervical sagittal parameters. METHODS: A total of 263 individuals with standing neutral lateral cervical radiographs were included in this study. The Frankfort horizontal line (FHL), foramen magnum line (FML), and McGregor line (ML) were separately used as the reference lines for measuring the C0-1 angle and C0-2 angle. Intraclass correlation (ICC) values were used to compare the consistency and repeatability of the three methods. Pearson’s correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation between the sagittal parameters of the upper and lower cervical spine. RESULTS: The interobserver and intraobserver ICC values obtained from using the ML to measure the C0-1 angle and C0-2 angle were both higher than those obtained from using the FML or FHL. The C0-1 angle and C0-2 angle measured by the three methods were negatively correlated with the C2-7 angle. The upper sagittal parameters measured by the FHL were the most correlated with the C2-7 angle. The correlation between the C0-1 angle measured by the three methods and the C0-2 angle measured with the FHL or ML and the C2-7 angle increased with aging. CONCLUSION: Use of the ML to measure the C0-1 angle and C0-2 angle has higher reliability. Use of the FHL to measure the sagittal alignment of the upper cervical spine is more suitable for evaluating the compensation mechanism between the upper and the lower cervical spine. BioMed Central 2023-04-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10111783/ /pubmed/37069521 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06402-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Xu, Shicai
Ma, Fei
Tang, Chao
Liao, Yehui
Tang, Qiang
Chen, Shiyu
Wang, Qing
Zhong, Dejun
Comparison of three methods for measuring C0-1 angles and C0-2 angles
title Comparison of three methods for measuring C0-1 angles and C0-2 angles
title_full Comparison of three methods for measuring C0-1 angles and C0-2 angles
title_fullStr Comparison of three methods for measuring C0-1 angles and C0-2 angles
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of three methods for measuring C0-1 angles and C0-2 angles
title_short Comparison of three methods for measuring C0-1 angles and C0-2 angles
title_sort comparison of three methods for measuring c0-1 angles and c0-2 angles
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10111783/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37069521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06402-0
work_keys_str_mv AT xushicai comparisonofthreemethodsformeasuringc01anglesandc02angles
AT mafei comparisonofthreemethodsformeasuringc01anglesandc02angles
AT tangchao comparisonofthreemethodsformeasuringc01anglesandc02angles
AT liaoyehui comparisonofthreemethodsformeasuringc01anglesandc02angles
AT tangqiang comparisonofthreemethodsformeasuringc01anglesandc02angles
AT chenshiyu comparisonofthreemethodsformeasuringc01anglesandc02angles
AT wangqing comparisonofthreemethodsformeasuringc01anglesandc02angles
AT zhongdejun comparisonofthreemethodsformeasuringc01anglesandc02angles