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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |