Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34540815›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2021

Subject-Specific Spino-Pelvic Models Reliably Measure Spinal Kinematics During Seated Forward Bending in Adult Spinal Deformity.

Thomas Overbergh, Pieter Severijns, Erica Beaucage-Gauvreau, Thijs Ackermans, Lieven Moke, Ilse Jonkers, Lennart Scheys

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 82% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas OverberghDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Training (IORT), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Pieter SeverijnsDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Training (IORT), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Erica Beaucage-GauvreauDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Training (IORT), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Thijs AckermansDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Training (IORT), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Lieven MokeDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Training (IORT), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Ilse JonkersDepartment of Movement Sciences, Human Movement Biomechanics Research Group, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Lennart ScheysDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Training (IORT), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Image-based subject-specific models and simulations are recently being introduced to complement current state-of-the-art mostly static insights of the adult spinal deformity (ASD) pathology and improve the often poor surgical outcomes. Although the accuracy of a recently developed subject-specific modeling and simulation framework has already been quantified, its reliability to perform marker-driven kinematic analyses has not yet been investigated. The aim of this work was to evaluate the reliability of this subject-specific framework to measure spine kinematics in ASD patients, in terms of 1) the overall test-retest repeatability; 2) the inter-operator agreement of spine kinematic estimates; and, 3) the uncertainty of those spine kinematics to operator-dependent parameters of the framework. To evaluate the overall repeatability 1], four ASD subjects and one control subject participated in a test-retest study with a 2-week interval. At both time instances, subject-specific spino-pelvic models were created by one operator to simulate a recorded forward trunk flexion motion. Next, to evaluate inter-operator agreement 2], three trained operators each created a model for three ASD subjects to simulate the same forward trunk flexion motion. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC's) of the range of motion (ROM) of conventional spino-pelvic parameters [lumbar lordosis (LL), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), thoracic kyphosis (TK), pelvic tilt (PT), T1-and T9-spino-pelvic inclination (T1/T9-SPI)] were used to evaluate kinematic reliability 1] and inter-operator agreement 2]. Lastly, a Monte-Carlo probabilistic simulation was used to evaluate the uncertainty of the intervertebral joint kinematics to operator variability in the framework, for three ASD subjects 3]. LL, SVA, and T1/T9-SPI had an excellent test-retest reliability for the ROM, while TK and PT did not. Inter-operator agreement was excellent, with ICC values higher than test-retest reliability. These results indicate that operator-induced uncertainty has a limited impact on kinematic simulations of spine flexion, while test-retest reliability has a much higher variability. The definition of the intervertebral joints in the framework was identified as the most sensitive operator-dependent parameter. Nevertheless, intervertebral joint estimations had small mean 90% confidence intervals (1.04°-1.75°). This work will contribute to understanding the limitations of kinematic simulations in ASD patients, thus leading to a better evaluation of future hypotheses.

Indexed as

adult spinal deformitymotion analysisopensim modeloperator variabilityreliabilityspine kinematicsspine modelsubject-specific modeling and simulation

Identifiers

PMID34540815
PMCPMC8440831
OpenAlexW3197353339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.