Search

Background: The thoracolumbar region is where most fractures of the spine are located. Segmental kyphosis is an important factor for treatment decisions. There are various methods for measuring segmental kyphosis in thoracolumbar fractures. Our objective was to evaluate if the experience of the surgeon has any influence on kyphosis measurement by analyzing three different categories of orthopedic surgeons and evaluate possible clinical impacts. Material and methods: Six physicians separated into three categories according to the level of experience evaluated 30 lateral view radiographs of the thoracic spine of patients with single-level fracture taken during their outpatient follow-up visits. Images had segmental kyphosis measured by five distinct methods. The x-rays were evaluated twice and in a random order after an eight-week interval. The reproducibility of the measurements was analyzed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and its respective 95% confidence interval. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to evaluate the inter- and intra-examiner reliability for each method. The methods that disregard the fractured vertebra (1 and 4) achieved the highest intra and inter-observers reliability among the participants. The measurements from methods 3 and 5 were poorly reproducible between examiners. The difference between the averages of the measurements of the five methods studied was greater than 5 degrees in methods 1 and 2, suggesting risk for patient safety. Conclusion: Methods that exclude the fractured vertebra were more reproducible for the evaluation of segmental kyphosis in thoracolumbar fractures. The evaluation of the spine fracture must be coupled with other radiographic criteria, more complex image exams and the patient’s clinical state to assist the surgeon in deciding between conservative or surgical treatment. The authors suggest that the measurements should be performed by methods that exclude the fractured vertebra and conducted by experienced doctors.

Methods The screening program was based on three steps: A clinical examination was performed by the school physician and two specialists. Doubtful cases (presence of hump between the two sides of the torso as measured in the thoracic or thoracolumbar region with use of a humpmeter) were evaluated by an orthopedic specialist that prescribed clinical control every six months or X-ray examination. Classification of scoliosis and procedures for treatment. All patients were scheduled for a follow-up program and were evaluated in the subsequent three years. Statistical analyses were performed with GraphPad Prism 6.

Background Several risk factors exist for the development of low back pain, including prolonged sitting and flexed spinal curvature. Several investigators have studied lumbar support devices and spinal curvatures in sitting, however few have investigated a pain population and reported a quantitative measure of comfort. The purpose of the current project was to determine whether a lumbar support pillow, outfitted with a cut-out to accommodate the bulk of posterior pelvic soft tissue volume, is more effective than a standard chair in promoting a neutral spinal posture and improving subjective and objective measures of comfort in healthy individuals and patients with low back pain. Methods Twenty eight male participants with and without a history of low back pain sat in a standard office chair and in a chair with the lumbar support pillow for 30 minutes. Lumbar and thoracolumbar postures were measured through electromagnetic markers. Comfort was determined based on the least squares radius of centre of pressure shifting, measured at the buttock-chair interface as well as reported discomfort through visual analog scales. Chair support effects were assessed through ANOVA methods. The study was approved by the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College research ethics board. Results There was a main effect of condition on lumbar posture (p = 0.006) and thoracolumbar posture (p = 0.014). In the lumbar region, the support and standard chair differed by 2.88° (95% CI; 1.01-4.75), with the lumbar support being closer to neutral than the standard chair. In the thoracolumbar region, the support and standard chair differed by -2.42° (95% CI; -4.22 to -0.62), with the standard chair being closer to neutral than the support device. The centre of pressure measure was significantly improved with the pillow (p = 0.017), however there were no subjective changes in comfort. Conclusions A lumbar support pillow with a cut-out for the posterior pelvic tissues improved an objective measure of comfort in healthy individuals and patients with low back pain. Lumbar flattening was decreased and thoracolumbar curvature was increased. However, angular changes were small and future work is required to determine clinical relevance over the long term. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00754585