Cargando…

Schober Test and Its Modifications Revisited—What Are We Actually Measuring? Computerized Tomography-Based Analysis

Objective: Examine Schober test’s (ST), Modified ST (MST), and Modified–Modified ST (MMST) surface markers’ accuracy in spanning lumbar L1-S1 motion segments and repeatability related to actual patient anatomy as measured on sagittal CT scans. Methods: The study included 25 patients of varying heigh...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hershkovich, Oded, Grevitt, Michael Paul, Lotan, Raphael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9736537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36498470
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11236895
_version_ 1784847054726496256
author Hershkovich, Oded
Grevitt, Michael Paul
Lotan, Raphael
author_facet Hershkovich, Oded
Grevitt, Michael Paul
Lotan, Raphael
author_sort Hershkovich, Oded
collection PubMed
description Objective: Examine Schober test’s (ST), Modified ST (MST), and Modified–Modified ST (MMST) surface markers’ accuracy in spanning lumbar L1-S1 motion segments and repeatability related to actual patient anatomy as measured on sagittal CT scans. Methods: The study included 25 patients of varying heights, weights, and gender without prior spinal surgery or deformity. Researchers assessed patients’ CT scans for ST, MST, and MMST skin levels of the measured cephalic and caudal endpoints. Results: The original ST failed to include at least one lumbar motion segment in all patients, omitting the L1-L2 motion segment in 17 patients and the L2-L3 in another eight. The additional cephalic length of the MST did not improve the inclusion of the actual L1-S1 components. The MMST measured 19 ‘patients’ entire L1-S1 motion segments, reaching a 76% accuracy rate. WMST, measuring 16 cm (instead of MMST’s 15 cm), improved the measurement significantly, measuring the L1-S1 motion segments in all cases (with 100% accuracy). Conclusion: ST and its modifications fail to span the L1-S1 motion segments and are thus prone to underestimating lumbar spine motion. This study shows that the WMST is much more accurate than previous modifications and is a better tool for evaluating lumbar spine motion.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9736537
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97365372022-12-11 Schober Test and Its Modifications Revisited—What Are We Actually Measuring? Computerized Tomography-Based Analysis Hershkovich, Oded Grevitt, Michael Paul Lotan, Raphael J Clin Med Article Objective: Examine Schober test’s (ST), Modified ST (MST), and Modified–Modified ST (MMST) surface markers’ accuracy in spanning lumbar L1-S1 motion segments and repeatability related to actual patient anatomy as measured on sagittal CT scans. Methods: The study included 25 patients of varying heights, weights, and gender without prior spinal surgery or deformity. Researchers assessed patients’ CT scans for ST, MST, and MMST skin levels of the measured cephalic and caudal endpoints. Results: The original ST failed to include at least one lumbar motion segment in all patients, omitting the L1-L2 motion segment in 17 patients and the L2-L3 in another eight. The additional cephalic length of the MST did not improve the inclusion of the actual L1-S1 components. The MMST measured 19 ‘patients’ entire L1-S1 motion segments, reaching a 76% accuracy rate. WMST, measuring 16 cm (instead of MMST’s 15 cm), improved the measurement significantly, measuring the L1-S1 motion segments in all cases (with 100% accuracy). Conclusion: ST and its modifications fail to span the L1-S1 motion segments and are thus prone to underestimating lumbar spine motion. This study shows that the WMST is much more accurate than previous modifications and is a better tool for evaluating lumbar spine motion. MDPI 2022-11-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9736537/ /pubmed/36498470 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11236895 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Hershkovich, Oded
Grevitt, Michael Paul
Lotan, Raphael
Schober Test and Its Modifications Revisited—What Are We Actually Measuring? Computerized Tomography-Based Analysis
title Schober Test and Its Modifications Revisited—What Are We Actually Measuring? Computerized Tomography-Based Analysis
title_full Schober Test and Its Modifications Revisited—What Are We Actually Measuring? Computerized Tomography-Based Analysis
title_fullStr Schober Test and Its Modifications Revisited—What Are We Actually Measuring? Computerized Tomography-Based Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Schober Test and Its Modifications Revisited—What Are We Actually Measuring? Computerized Tomography-Based Analysis
title_short Schober Test and Its Modifications Revisited—What Are We Actually Measuring? Computerized Tomography-Based Analysis
title_sort schober test and its modifications revisited—what are we actually measuring? computerized tomography-based analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9736537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36498470
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11236895
work_keys_str_mv AT hershkovichoded schobertestanditsmodificationsrevisitedwhatareweactuallymeasuringcomputerizedtomographybasedanalysis
AT grevittmichaelpaul schobertestanditsmodificationsrevisitedwhatareweactuallymeasuringcomputerizedtomographybasedanalysis
AT lotanraphael schobertestanditsmodificationsrevisitedwhatareweactuallymeasuringcomputerizedtomographybasedanalysis