Portatif sagital plan omurga eğriliği ölçüm sistemi tasarımı ve ön değerlendirmesi

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 40 Sayı: 3, 1921 - 1936, 21.08.2025

Osman Uzun , Ramazan Kayacan

https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.1528584

Öz

Bu çalışmada torakal ve lomber bölgedeki sagital plan omurga eğriliklerindeki postürel değişimlerin ön tanısında klinisyene yardımcı olabilen, kişiyi radyasyona maruz bırakmayan, bilgisayar destekli omurga eğriliği ölçüm sistemi prototip imalatı için kavramsal – mekanik tasarım ve yazılım algoritması geliştirilmiştir. Omurga hattı üzerinde tarama işlemi C7 ve L5 vertebralar arasında en dip ve en üst vertebralarına ait spinöz prosesler tespit edilip torakal ve lomber bölge için ayrı ayrı referans noktaları olarak oluşturulmaktadır. Oluşturulan referans noktalarından ölçüm sistemi elde edilen ölçüm değerleri bilgisayarda oluşturulan yazılımla analiz edilerek torakal ve lomber bölge için sagital plan omurga eğrilikleri oluşturulmaktadır. Ölçüm sistemini test etmek için omurga test modeli geliştirilmiştir. Test modeli üzerindeki torakal ve lomber bölgede farklı eğrilikler oluşturularak gonyometre (GA) , omurga eğriliği ölçüm sistemi (ÖSA) ve inklinometre (İC) ile ölçümler gerçekleştirilerek sonuçları karşılaştırılmıştır. Torakal eğrilik için GA ve ÖSA arasında çok güçlü ve anlamlı (r=0,987 , p<0,05) bir korelasyon vardır. Lomber eğrilik için GA ve ÖSA arasında güçlü ve anlamlı (r=0,980, p<0,05) bir korelasyon bulunmuştur. Geliştirmiş olduğumuz omurga eğriliği ölçüm sistemi kullanılarak elde edilen sagital plan torakal ve lomber eğrilik ön test açıları, gonyometre incelemesinden elde edilen açılarla uyum içerisindedir. Dolayısıyla omurga eğriliği ölçüm sistemi torakal ve lomber eğrilikleri ölçmek için insan üzerinde kullanılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Omurga , Cobb , torakal kifoz , lomber lordoz , Pugh diyagram

Kaynakça

• 1. Wikipedia. Vertebra. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebra. Erişim tarihi Kasım 13, 2024.
• 2. Ecerkale E., Postür analizinde symmetrigraf ile orthoröntgenogram sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi, T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Okmeydanı Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Fizik Tedavi ve Rehabilitasyon Kliniği, Uzmanlık Tezi, İstanbul, 2006.
• 3. Reamy B.M., Slakey J.B., Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: review and current concepts, Am Fam Physician, 64 (1), 111-117, 2001.
• 4. Walicka-Cupryś K., Wyszyńska J., Podgórska-Bednarz J., Drzał-Grabiec J., Concurrent validity of photogrammetric and inclinometric techniques based on assessment of anteroposterior spinal curvatures, Eur Spine J, 27 (2), 497-507, 2018.
• 5. Tabard-Fougère A., Bonnefoy-Mazure A., Dhouib A., Valaikaite R., Armand S., Dayer R., Radiation-free measurement tools to evaluate sagittal parameters in AIS patients: a reliability and validity study, Eur Spine J, 28 (3), 536-543, 2019.
• 6. Hannink E., Shannon T., Barker, K., Dawes H., The reliability and reproducibility of sagittal spinal curvature measurement using the Microsoft Kinect V2, J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil, 33 (2), 295-301, 2020.
• 7. Hannink E., Dawes H., Shannon T.M.L., Barker K.L., Validity of sagittal thoracolumbar curvature measurement using a non-radiographic surface topography method, Spine Deform., 10 (6), 1299-1306, 2022.
• 8. Degenhardt B.F., Starks Z., Bhatia S., Reliability of the DIERS formetric 4D spine shape parameters in adults without postural deformities, Biomed Res Int, 2020, 1796247, 2020.
• 9. Żurawski A.Ł., Kiebzak W.P., Kowalski I.M., Śliwiński G., Śliwiński Z., Evaluation of the association between postural control and sagittal curvature of the spine. PLoS One,15 (10), e0241228, 2020.
• 10. Dreischarf B., Koch E., Dreischarf M., Schmidt H., Pumberger M., Becker L., Comparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motion, Sci Rep ,12, 10222, 2022.
• 11. Huthwelker J., Konradi J., Wolf C., Westphal R., Schmidtmann I., Drees P., Betz U., Reference values for 3D spinal posture based on videorasterstereographic analyses of healthy adults, Bioengineering, 9 (12), 809, 2022.
• 12. Koda H., Kai Y., Kida N., Morihara T., Spinal alignment measurement with Kinect sensor is valid for thoracic kyphosis but not for lumbar lordosis, J Orthop Surg Res, 18, 214, 2023.
• 13. Azadinia F., Kamyab M., Behtash H., Saleh Ganjavian M., Javaheri M.R., The validity and reliability of noninvasive methods for measuring kyphosis, J Spinal Disord Tech, 27 (6), E212-E218, 2014.
• 14. Sangtarash F., Manshadi F.D., Sadeghi A., Tabatabaee S.M., Gheysari A.M., Validity and reliability of dual digital inclinometer in measuring thoracic kyphosis in women over 45 years, J Spine, 3, 1-4, 2014.
• 15. Kluszczyński M., Wąsik J., Ortenburger D., Zarzycki D., Siwik P., Prognostic value of measuring the angles of lumbar lordosis and thoracic kyphosis with the Saunders inclinometer in patients with low back pain, Pol Ann Med, 24 (1), 31-35, 2017.
• 16. Hunter D.J., Rivett D.A., McKiernan S., Weerasekara I., Snodgrass S.J., Is the inclinometer a valid measure of thoracic kyphosis? A cross-sectional study, Braz J Phys Ther, 22 (4), 310-317, 2018.
• 17. Schmidt A.V., Andrade R.M., Novo N.F., Ribeiro A.P., Reliability and validity between two instruments for measuring spine sagittal parameters in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis during various stages of growth, Revista Medicina Legal De Costa Rica, 39 (2), 51-68, 2022.
• 18. Ribeiro R.P., Marchetti B.V., de Oliveira E.B., Candotti C.T., Kyphosis index obtained in X-ray and with flexicurve assessment in children and young people, Revista Brasileira de Saúde Materno Infantil 17 (1), 79-87, 2017.
• 19. Grindle D., Mousavi S.J., Allaire B., White A., Anderson D., Validity of flexicurve and motion capture for measurements of thoracic kyphosis vs standing radiographic measurements. JOR Spine, 3 (3), e1120, 2020.
• 20. Shamsi M.B., Veisi K., Karimi L., Safari A., Data of range of thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis between line and staff personnel of armed forces in Kermanshah, Iran, Data Brief, 42, 108194, 2022.
• 21. Giglio C.A., Volpon J.B., Development and evaluation of thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis during growth, J Child Orthop, 1 (3), 187-193, 2007.
• 22. Finestone A.S., Marcus G., Anekstein Y., Mirovsky Y., Agar G., Assessing kyphosis with spinescan: Another attempt to reduce our dependence on radiography, Spine J, 13 (8), 926-931, 2013.
• 23. Zafereo J., Wang-Price S., Brown J., Carson E., Reliability and comparison of spinal end-range motion assessment using a skin-surface device in participants with and without low back pain, J Manipulative Physiol Ther, 39 (6), 434-442, 2016.
• 24. Büyükturan Ö., Büyükturan B., Yetiş M., Yetiş A., Yaşlı bireylerde cilt yüzeyi üzerinden torasik kifoz ve lumbal lordoz açılarının değerlendirilmesi: Spinal Mouse geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği, diclemedj, 45 (2), 121-127, 2018.
• 25. Russell B.S., Muhlenkamp-Wermert K.A., Hoiriis K.T., Measurement of lumbar lordosis: A comparison of 2 alternatives to the Cobb angle, J Manipulative Physiol Ther, 43 (8),760-767, 2020.
• 26. Folsch C, Schlögel S., Lakemeier S., Wolf U., Timmesfeld N., Skwara A., Test-retest reliability of 3D ultrasound measurements of the thoracic spine, PM R, 4 (5), 335-341, 2012.
• 27. Kowalski I.M., Protasiewicz-Fałdowska H., Dwornik M., Pierożyński B., Raistenskis J., Kiebzak W., Objective parallel-forms reliability assessment of 3 dimension real time body posture screening tests, BMC Pediatr, 14, 221, 2014.
• 28. Takacs M., Rudner E., Kovacs A., Orlovits Z., Kiss R.M., The assessment of the spinal curvatures in the sagittal plane of children using an ultrasound-based motion analysing system, Ann Biomed Eng, 43 (2), 348-362, 2015.
• 29. Takács M., Orlovits Z., Jáger B., Kiss RM., Comparison of spinal curvature parameters as determined by the ZEBRIS spine examination method and the Cobb method in children with scoliosis, PLoS One, 13 (7), e0200245, 2018.
• 30. Shahri Y.F.K., Hesar N.G.H., Validity and reliability of smartphone-based Goniometer-Pro app for measuring the thoracic kyphosis, Musculoskelet Sci Pract, 49, 102216, 2020.
• 31. Canan Pakeloğlu A., Koç M., Yılmaz A., Bayar B., Bayar K., Comparing the reliability of the Goniometer Pro application and flexicurve for measuring thoracic kyphosis: a cross-sectional study, Int J Ther Rehabil, 30 (11), 1-9, 2023.
• 32. Elpeze G., Usgu G., Yiğit S., Reliability of the smartphone application inclinometer and flexicurve in measuring thoracic kyphosis, Cureus, 15 (3), 2023.
• 33. Şahinoğlu E., Ergin G., Bakırhan S., Ünver B., Reliability, concurrent validity, and minimal detectable change of a smartphone application for measuring thoracic kyphosis, Clin Exp Health Sci, 13 (3), 511-516, 2023.
• 34. Pugh S., Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering, Addison-Wesley, Harlow, İngiltere, 1991.
• 35. Ulrich K.T., Eppinger S.D., Product Design and Development, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, A.B.D., 2012.
• 36. Marks M., Stanford C., Newton P., Lateral radiographic positioning technique provides the most reliable and functional representation of a patient’s sagittal balance?, Spine, 34 (9), 949-954, 2009.
• 37. Suzuki H., Endo K., Mizuochi J., Kobayashi H., Tanaka H., Yamamoto K., Clasped position for measurement of sagittal spinal alignment, Eur Spine J, 19 (5), 782–786, 2010.
• 38. Sieh K.M., Chan Y.Y., Ho P.Y., Fung K.Y., What is the best lateral radiograph positioning technique for assessment of sagittal balance: A biomechanical study on influence of different arm positions, J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong), 26 (2), 2309499018770932, 2018.
• 39. Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., Lang A.G., Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses, Behav Res Methods, 41, 1149-1160, 2009.
• 40. Chaise F.O., Candotti C.T., Torre M.L., Furlanetto T.S., Pelinson P.P., Loss J.F., Validation, repeatability and reproducibility of a noninvasive instrument for measuring thoracic and lumbar curvature of the spine in the sagittal plane, Rev Bras Fisioter, 15 (6), 511-517, 2011.
• 41. Todd C., Agnvall C., Kovac P., Sward A., Johansoon C., Sward L., Karlsson J., Baranto A., Validation of spinal sagittal alignment with plain radiographs and the Debrunner Kyphometer. Med Res Arch, 2 (1), 2015.
• 42. Harrison D.E., Harrison D.D., Cailliet R., Janik T.J., Holland B., Radiographic analysis of lumbar lordosis: centroid, Cobb, TRALL, and Harrison posterior tangent methods, Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 26 (11), E235–E242, 2001.
• 43. Vrtovec T., Pernuš F., Likar B., A review of methods for quantitative evaluation of spinal curvature, Eur Spine J, 18 (5), 593-607, 2009.
• 44. Lewis J.S., Valentine R.E., Clinical measurement of the thoracic kyphosis. A study of the intra-rater reliability in subjects with and without shoulder pain, BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 11, 39, 2010.
• 45. Hinkle D.E., Wiersma W., Jurs S.G., Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 5th Edition, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, A.B.D., 2002.
• 46. Bland J.M., Altman D.G., Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement, Lancet, 1 (8476), 307-310, 1986.
• 47. Youdas J.W., Suman V.J., Garrett T.R., Reliability of measurements of lumbar spine sagittal mobility obtained with the flexible curve, J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 21 (1), 13-20, 1995.
• 48. Polly D.W., Kilkelly F.X., McHale K.A., Asplund L.M., Mulligan M., Chang A.S., Measurement of lumbar lordosis: Evaluation of intraobserver, interobserver, and technique variability, Spine, 21 (13), 1530-1535, 1996.
• 49. Hicks G.E., George S.Z., Nevitt M.A., Cauley J.A., Vogt, M.T., Measurement of lumbar lordosis: Inter-rater reliability, minimum detectable change and longitudinal variation, Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques, 19 (7), 501-506, 2006.
• 50. Norton B.J., Hensler K., Zou D., Comparisons among noninvasive methods for measuring lumbar curvature in standing, J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 32 (8), 405-414, 2002.
• 51. Burç H., Torakal ve lomber eğrilik açısı ölçüm yöntemleri için klinik kabul edilebilirlik sınırları, İstanbul Beykent Üniversitesi, Ortopedik Protez ve Ortez Bölümü, İstanbul, Türkiye, kişisel görüşme, 2024.