Advances in Musculoskeletal and Neuromuscular Rehabilitation Open access

Ultrasound vs. x-ray: a new way for clinicians to track scoliosis progression?

Authors

Published
21 February 2025
Section
Advances in Musculoskeletal and Neuromuscular Rehabilitation
DOI
10.4081/ejtm.2025.13422

Abstract

This retrospective study, utilising prospectively collected data, investigates the use of spine ultrasound as an alternative method for assessing scoliosis, with the aim of reducing radiation exposure. We included 92 patients aged 10 to 16 years with suspected idiopathic scoliosis. Exclusion criteria were weight over 150 kg, metal implants, pre-existing conditions, secondary deformities, and cognitive impairments. Each patient underwent clinical assessment and full spine radiographs, followed by spine ultrasound using the Scolioscan® system. Unprocessed B-mode ultrasound images were analysed using automatic measurements. The correlation between Ultrasound Coronal Angle (UCA) and Radiographic Cobb Angle (RCA) was evaluated at initial and follow-up visits. Strong correlations were found between UCA and RCA, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.786 to 0.903 (p<0.001). The regression formula showed good predictive accuracy for curve progression on follow-up radiographs. The best results were observed in females and in primary thoracic curves (r = 0.936, p<0.001). Although only four patients exhibited true progression (≥5° increase in Cobb angle), changes in scoliotic angles were effectively detected using ultrasound. This study confirms the feasibility of unprocessed spine ultrasound for scoliosis monitoring in clinical settings. Automatic measurements without 3D reconstruction make ultrasound a practical tool for tracking progression. The regression model shows potential for predicting curve progression, although further validation is needed. These findings suggest spine ultrasound could reduce the need for radiographs, benefiting patients by minimising radiation exposure while providing reliable monitoring of scoliosis progression and treatment outcomes.

Keywords

References

  1. Fadzan M, Bettany-Saltikov J. Etiological theories of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: past and present. Open Orthop J 2017;11:1466-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001711011466
  2. Stokes IAF, Burwell RG, Dangerfield PH. Biomechanical spinal growth modulation and progressive adolescent scoliosis – a test of the ‘vicious cycle’ pathogenetic hypothesis: Summary of an electronic focus group debate of the IBSE. Scoliosis 2006;1:16 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-1-16
  3. Chockalingam N, Dangerfield PH, Giakas G, et al. Computer-assisted Cobb measurement of scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2002;1:353-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-002-0386-x
  4. Jin C, Wang S, Yang G, et al. A review of the methods on Cobb angle measurements for spinal curvature. Sensors (Basel) 2022;22:3258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s22093258
  5. Negrini S, Donzelli S, Aulisa AG, et al. 2016 SOSORT guidelines: orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth. Scoliosis Spinal Disorders 2018;13:3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-017-0145-8
  6. Carman DL, Browne RH, Birch JG. Measurement of scoliosis and kyphosis radiographs. Intraobserver and interobserver variation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72:328–333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199072030-00003
  7. Schlösser TP, van der Heijden GJ, Versteeg AL, Castelein RM. How 'idiopathic' is adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? A systematic review on associated abnormalities. PLoS One 2014;9:e97461. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097461
  8. Konieczny MR, Senyurt H, Krauspe R. Epidemiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Child Orthop 2013;7:3-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11832-012-0457-4
  9. Presciutti SM, Karukanda T, Lee M. Management decisions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis significantly affect patient radiation exposure. Spine J 2014;14:1984-90.
  10. Simony A, Hansen EJ, Christensen SB, et al. Incidence of cancer in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients treated 25 years previously. Eur Spine J 2016;25:3366-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4747-2
  11. Hoffman DA, Lonstein JE, Morin MM, et al. Breast cancer in women with scoliosis exposed to multiple diagnostic Xrays. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;8117:1307–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/81.17.1307
  12. Deschenes S, Charron G, Beaudoin G, et al. Diagnostic imaging of spinal deformities reducing patients radiation dose with a new slot-scanning X-ray imager. Spine 2010;35:989–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bdcaa4
  13. Al-Aubaidi Z, Lebel D, Oudjhane K, Zeller R. Three-dimensional imaging of the spine using the EOS system: is it reliable? A comparative study using computed tomography imaging. J Pediatric Orthopaedics B 2013;22:409–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BPB.0b013e328361ae5b
  14. Maccarone MC, Avenia M, Masiero S. Postural-motor development, spinal range of movement and caregiver burden in Prader-Willi syndrome-associated scoliosis: an observational study. Eur J Translat Myol 2024;34:12533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/ejtm.2024.12533
  15. Paramento M, Passarotto E, Maccarone MC, et al. Neurophysiological, balance and motion evidence in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2024;19:e0303086. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303086
  16. Navarro IJRL, Rosa BND, Candotti CT. Anatomical reference marks, evaluation parameters and reproducibility of surface topography for evaluating the adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Gait Posture 2019;69:112-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.01.001
  17. Bolzinger M, Bernardini I, Thevenin Lemoine C, et al. Monitoring adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by measuring ribs prominence using surface topography device. Spine Deform 2021;9:1349-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-021-00327-1
  18. Mehta B, Chockalingam N, Shannon T, et al. Non-invasive assessment of back surface topography: technologies, techniques and clinical utility. Sensors 2023;23:8485. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s23208485
  19. Brink RC, Wijdicks SPJ, Tromp IN, et al. A reliability and validity study for different coronal angles using ultrasound imaging in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine J 2018;18:979–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.10.012
  20. Cheung CWJ, Zhou GQ, Law SY, et al. Freehand three-dimensional ultrasound system for assessment of scoliosis. J Orthopaedic Translat 2015;3:123–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2015.06.001
  21. Cheung CW, Zhou GQ, Law SY, et al. Ultrasound volume projection imaging for assessment of scoliosis. IEEE Transaction on Medical Imaging 2015;8:1760–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2015.2390233
  22. Young M, Hill DL, Zheng R, Lou E. Reliability and accuracy of ultrasound measurements with and without the aid of previous radiographs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Europe Spine J 2015;24:1427–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3855-8
  23. Wang Q, Li M, Lou EHM, Wong MS. Reliability and validity study of clinical ultrasound imaging on lateral curvature of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. PLoS One 2015;10:e0135264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135264
  24. Zheng YP, Lee TT, Lai KK, et al. A reliability and validity study for Scolioscan: a radiation-free scoliosis assessment system using 3D ultrasound imaging. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 2016;11:13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-016-0074-y
  25. Lai KK, Lee TT, Lee MK, et al. Validation of scolioscan air-portable radiation-free three-dimensional ultrasound imaging assessment system for scoliosis. Sensors (Basel) 2021;21:2858. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s21082858
  26. Lee TY, Yang D, Lai KK, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasonography could be a potential non-ionizing tool to evaluate vertebral rotation of subjects with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. JOR Spine 2023;6:e1259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1259
  27. Horng MH, Kuok CP, Fu MJ, et al. Cobb angle measurement of spine from x-ray images using convolutional neural network. Comput Math Methods Med 2019;2019:6357171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6357171
  28. Negrini S, Fusco C, Romano M, et al. Clinical and postural behaviour of scoliosis during daily brace weaning hours. Stud Health Technol Inform 2008;140:303-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-4-S1-O37
  29. Vrtovec T, Pernus F, Likar B. A review of methods for quantitative evaluation of spinal curvature. Eur Spine J 2009;18:593–607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0913-0
  30. Lee TT, Lai KK, Cheng JC, et al. 3D ultrasound imaging provides reliable angle measurement with validity comparable to X-ray in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Orthop Translat 2021;29:51-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2021.04.007
  31. De Reuver S, Brink RC, Lee TTY, et al. Cross-validation of ultrasound imaging in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2021;30:628-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06652-9
  32. Gstoettner M, Sekyra K, Walochnik N, Winter P, Wachter R, Bach CM. (2007) Inter- and intraobserver reliability assessment of the Cobb angle: manual versus digital measurement tools. Eur Spine J 16(10):1587–92. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0401-3. Epub 2007 Jun 5. PMID: 17549526; PMCID: PMC2078306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0401-3
  33. Banerjee S, Huang Z, Lyu J, et al. Automatic assessment of ultrasound curvature angle for scoliosis detection using 3-D ultrasound volume projection imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2024;50:647-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2023.12.015
  34. Lee TTY, Jiang WW, Cheng CLK, et al. A novel method to measure the sagittal curvature in spinal deformities: the reliability and feasibility of 3-D ultrasound imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2019;45:2725–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2019.05.031
  35. Avramescu S, Arzola C, Tharmaratnam U, et al. Sonoanatomy of the thoracic spine in adult volunteers. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2012;37:349–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AAP.0b013e3182464be2
  36. Cool J, Streekstra GJ, van Schuppen J, et al. Estimated cumulative radiation exposure in patients treated for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2023;32:1777-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07651-2
  37. Presciutti SM, Karukanda T, Lee M. Management decisions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis significantly affect patient radiation exposure. Spine J 2014;14:1984-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.11.055
  38. Pjanic S, Talic G, Bojinovic Rodic D. Comparison between radiographic and ultrasound angle measurements in the assessment of idiopathic scoliosis. Biomedicinska istrazivanja 2021;12:139-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/bii2102139p
  39. Lai KK, Lee TT, Lau HH, et al. Monitoring of curve progression in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using 3-D ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2024;50:384-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2023.11.011
  40. Pang H, Wong YS, Yip BH, et al. Using ultrasound to screen for scoliosis to reduce unnecessary radiographic radiation: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study on 442 schoolchildren. Ultrasound Med Biol 2021;47:2598-607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.05.020
  41. Wong YS, Lai KK, Zheng YP, et al. Is radiation-free ultrasound accurate for quantitative assessment of spinal deformity in idiopathic scoliosis (IS): a detailed analysis with EOS radiography on 952 patients. Ultrasound Med Biol 2019;45:2866-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2019.07.006

Metrics

Citations and online attention from Dimensions, Altmetric and PlumX.

PlumX Metrics

License

Copyright (c) 2025 the Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.