Sagittal Full-Spine vs. Sectional Cervical Lateral Radiographs: Are the Measurements of Cervical Alignment Interchangeable?

(1) Background: This study assessed the relationship between cervical spine parameters taken on standing full-spine lateral radiographic images compared to sectional lateral cervical radiographs. (2) Methods: Full-spine (FS) and sectional lateral cervical (LC) radiographs from four spine treatment facilities across the USA retrospectively provided data collected on 220 persons to assess the comparison of three sagittal cervical radiographic measurements between the two views. The measures included cervical lordosis using the absolute rotation angle from C2-C7, sagittal cervical translation of C2-C7, and atlas plane angle to horizontal. Linear correlation and R2 models were used for statistical comparison of the measures for the two views. (3) Results: The mean values of the three measurements were statistically different from each other: C2-C7 translation (FS = 19.84 ± 11.98 vs. LC = 21.18 ± 11.8), C2-C7 lordosis (FS = -15.3 ± 14.63 vs. LC = -18.32 ± 13.16), and atlas plane (FS = -19.99 ± 8.88 vs. LC = -22.56 ± 8.93), where all values were p < 0.001. Weak-to-moderate-to-strong correlations existed between the full-spine and sectional lateral cervical radiographic variables. The R2 values varied based on the measurement were R2 = 0.768 (p < 0.001) for sagittal cervical translation of C2-C7 (strong), R2 = 0.613 (p < 0.001) for the absolute rotation angle C2-C7 (moderate), and R2 = 0.406 (p < 0.001) for the atlas plane line (weak). Though a linear correlation was identified, there were consistent intra-person differences between the measurements on the full spine versus sectional lateral cervical radiographic views, where the full-spine view consistently underestimated the magnitude of the variables. (4) Conclusion: Key sagittal cervical radiographic measurements on the full spine versus sectional lateral cervical radiographic views show striking intra-person differences. The findings of this study confirm that full spine versus sectional lateral cervical radiographic views provide different biomechanical magnitudes of cervical sagittal alignment, and caution should be exercised by health care providers as these are not interchangeable. We recommend the LC view for measurement of cervical sagittal alignment variables.

Two Methods of Forward Head Posture Assessment: Radiography vs. Posture and Their Clinical Comparison.

Background: Forward head posture (FHP) and altered cervical lordotic curvatures are common spine displacements often associated with neck pain and disability. Two primary categories for determining FHP exist: radiographic and postural measurements. Methods: This study investigated the correlation between the craniovertebral angle (CVA), the radiographically measured C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and cervical lordosis (absolute rotation angle: ARA C2-C7) in a sample of participants with chronic myofascial pain (CMP). In 120 participants, we performed both a postural measurement of the CVA and a lateral cervical radiograph, where the C2-C7 SVA and ARA C2-C7 were measured. A linear-regression R2 value to assess the correlation between the CVA, C2-C7 SVA, and ARA C2-C7 was sought. Results: A statistically significant weak linear fit was identified (Spearman's r = 0.549; R2 = 0.30, p < 0.001) between the CVA and C2-C7 SVA, having considerable variation between the two measures. A statistically significant linear fit (very weak) was identified for the lordosis ARA C2-C7 and the CVA: Spearman's r = 0.524; R2 = 0.275; p < 0.001. A value of 50° for the CVA corresponded to a value of 20 mm for the C2-C7 SVA on an X-ray. Conclusion: While the CVA and radiographic C2-C7 SVA are weakly correlated in an individual, they seem to represent different aspects of sagittal cervical balance. The CVA cannot replace radiographically measured cervical lordosis. We recommend that more emphasis be given to radiographic measures of sagittal cervical alignment than the CVA when considering patient interventions.

Can the Mismatch of Measured Pelvic Morphology vs. Lumbar Lordosis Predict Chronic Low Back Pain Patients?

Background: Measures of lumbar lordosis (LL) and elliptical modeling variables have been shown to discriminate between normal and chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients. Pelvic morphology influences an individual's sagittal lumbar alignment. Our purpose is to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of lumbar sagittal radiographic alignment and modeling variables to identify if these can discriminate between normal controls and CLBP patients. Methods: We conducted a computer analysis of digitized vertebral body corners on lateral lumbar radiographs of normal controls and CLBP patients. Fifty normal controls were attained from a required pre-employment physical examination (29 men; 21 women; mean age of 27.7 ± 8.5 years), with no history of low back pain, a normal spinal examination, no pathologies, anomalies, or instability. Additionally, 50 CLBP patients (29 men; 29.5 ± 8 years of age) were randomly chosen and matched to the characteristics of the controls. The inclusion criteria required no abnormalities on lumbar spine radiographs. The parameters included the following: ARA L1-L5 lordosis, ARA T12-S1 lordosis, Cobb T12-S1, b/a elliptical modelling ratio, sacral base angle (SBA), and S1 posterior tangent to vertical (PTS1). Two measures of pelvic morphology were determined for each person-the angle of pelvic incidence (API) and posterior tangent pelvic incidence angle (PTPIA)-and the relationships between API - ARA T12-S1, API - Cobb T12-S1, and API - ARA L1-5 was determined. Descriptive statistics and correlations among the primary variables were determined. The receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC curves) for primary variables were analyzed. Results: The mean values of LL were statistically different between the normal and CLBP groups (p < 0.001), indicating a hypo-lordotic lumbar spine for the CLBP group. The mean b/a ratio was lower in the chronic pain group (p = 0.0066). The pelvic morphology variables were similar between the groups (p > 0.05). API had a stronger correlation to the SBA and Cobb T12-S1 than PTPIA did, while PTPIA had a stronger correlation to the S1 tangent and ARA T12-S1 than API did. While CLBP patients had a stronger correlation of ARA T12-S1 and Cobb T12-S1 relative to the pelvic morphology, they also had a reduced correlation of ARA L1-L5 lordosis relative to their SBA and pelvic morphology measures. API - T12-S1, API - L1-L5, and API - Cobb T12-S1 were statistically different between the groups, p < 0.001. Using ROC curve analyses, it was identified that ARA L1-L5 lordosis of 36° and ARA T12-S1 of 68° have a good sensitivity and specificity to discriminate between normal and CLBP patients. ROC curve analyses identified that lordosis ARAT12-S1 < 68° (AUC = 0.83), lordosis ARAL1-L5 < 36° (AUC = 0.78), API - ARA T12-S1 < -18° (AUC = 0.75), API - ARAL1-L5 > 35° (AUC = 0.71), and API - Cobb T12-S1 < -5° (AUC = 0.69) had moderate to good discrimination between groups (AUC = 0.83, 0.78, 0.75, and 0.72). Conclusions: Pelvic morphology is similar between normal and CLBP patients. CLBP patients have an abnormal 'fit' of their API - ARAT12-S1 and L1-L5 lumbar lordosis relative to their pelvic morphology and sacral tilt shown as a hypolordosis.

Radiophobia Overreaction: College of Chiropractors of British Columbia Revoke Full X-Ray Rights Based on Flawed Study and Radiation Fear-Mongering.

Fears over radiation have created irrational pressures to dissuade radiography use within chiropractic. Recently, the regulatory body for chiropractors practicing in British Columbia, Canada, the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia (CCBC), contracted Pierre Côté to review the clinical use of X-rays within the chiropractic profession. A "rapid review" was performed and published quickly and included only 9 papers, the most recent dating from 2005; they concluded, "Given the inherent risks of radiation, we recommend that chiropractors do not use radiographs for the routine and repeat evaluation of the structure and function of the spine." The CCBC then launched an immediate review of the use of X-rays by chiropractors in their jurisdiction. Member and public opinion were gathered but not presented to their members. On February 4, 2021, the College announced amendments to their Professional Conduct Handbook that revoked X-ray rights for routine/repeat assessment and management of patients with spine disorders. Here, we highlight current and historical evidence that substantiates that X-rays are not a public health threat. We also point out critical and insurmountable flaws in the single paper used to support irrational and unscientific policy that discriminates against chiropractors who practice certain forms of evidence-based X-ray-guided methods.

Anterior head translation following cervical fusion-a probable cause of post-surgical pain and impairment: a CBP® case report.

[Purpose] To present the case of the dramatic reduction in pain, disability, and neurologic symptoms following the reduction of forward head translation and increased cervical curvature in a patient suffering from post-surgical radiculopathy. [Subject and Methods] A 52-year-old male mechanic presented with chronic neck pain, unilateral paresthesia along the C5 and C6 dermatome distributions and diminished unilateral grip strength for 12 years following a C5-C6 cervical discectomy and fusion. Outcome measures included the neck disability index, the numerical pain rating scale, and the Zebris cervical range of motion system. Radiographs and computerized posture analysis revealed excessive forward head posture. Initial traditional 'symptom-relief' chiropractic rehabilitation was provided, followed by CBP® structural rehabilitation of head and neck posture with a 2.5 year follow-up. [Results] The initial traditional chiropractic rehabilitation did not improve posture or disability scores. CBP methods resulted in radiograph-verified postural alignment improvements corresponding with clinically significant improvements in the patient's neurologic condition, pain and disability scores. These results were maintained at a 2.5 year follow-up with minimal treatment. [Conclusion] Patients with post-surgical axial symptoms and/or radicular complaints should be screened for altered cervical alignment and anterior head translation. Future studies should attempt to duplicate these positive results in a trial with long-term follow-up.

Relief of exertional dyspnea and spinal pains by increasing the thoracic kyphosis in straight back syndrome (thoracic hypo-kyphosis) using CBP® methods: a case report with long-term follow-up.

[Purpose] To present the clinically significant improvement of straight back syndrome (SBS) in a patient with spinal pain and exertional dyspnea. [Subject and Methods] A 19 year old presented with excessive thoracic hypokyphosis and other postural deviations. A multimodal CBP® mirror image® protocol of corrective exercises, traction procedures and spine/posture adjusting were given over an initial 12-week course of intensive treatment followed by a 2.75 year follow-up with minimal supportive treatment. [Results] The patient had significant postural improvements in all postural measures and specifically a 14° increase in the thoracic kyphosis that was maintained at long-term follow-up. The postural improvements were consistent with relief of exertional dyspnea and pain, as well as increases in both antero-posterior thoracic diameter and the ratio of antero-posterior to transthoracic diameter, measurements critical to the wellbeing of patients with SBS. [Conclusion] Long-term follow-up confirmed stable improvement in physiologic thoracic kyphosis in this patient. Nonsurgical correction in thoracic hypokyphosis/SBS can be achieved by mirror image traction procedures configured to flex the thoracic spine into hyperkyphosis as well as corrective exercise and manipulation as a part of CBP technique protocols.

Characteristics and Challenges of Dietary Supplement Databases Derived from Label Information.

Launched in 2008, the Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD) permits the search of any term that appears anywhere on product labels. Since then, the database's search and download features have been periodically improved to enhance use for researchers and consumers. In this review, we describe how to customize searches and identify products and ingredients of interest to users in the DSLD, and provide the limitations of working with information derived from dietary supplement product labels. This article describes how data derived from information printed on product labels are entered and organized in the DSLD. Among the challenges are determining the chemical forms, types of extract, and amounts of dietary ingredients, especially when these are components of proprietary blends. The FDA announced new dietary supplement labeling regulations in May 2016. The 2017 DSLD has been updated to reflect them. These new regulations and examples cited in this article refer to this redesigned version of the DSLD. Search selection characteristics such as for product type and intended user group are as described in FDA guidance and regulations for dietary supplements. For this reason, some age groups (such as teens and seniors) and marketing recommendations for use (e.g., weight loss, performance, and other disease- or condition-specific claims) are not included in the search selections. The DSLD user interface features will be revised periodically to reflect regulatory and technologic developments to enhance user experience. A comprehensive database derived from analytically verified data on composition would be preferable to label data, but is not feasible for technical, logistic, and financial reasons. Therefore, a database derived from information printed on product labels is the only practical option at present for researchers, clinicians, and consumers interested in the composition of these products.

Radiographic pseudoscoliosis in healthy male subjects following voluntary lateral translation (side glide) of the thoracic spine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine projected Cobb angles associated with trunk list (side shift) posture, hypothesizing that the side shift "scoliotic" curvature would be similar to true scoliotic curvature in the early stages. DESIGN: Anteroposterior (AP) radiographs of volunteers in neutral, in left, and right lateral translations of the thoracic cage (trunk list) were digitized. SETTING: Computer laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen healthy male volunteers. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cobb and Risser-Ferguson angles determined from digitizing vertebral body corners from T12 to L5 on 51 AP lumbar radiographs. RESULTS: Using the horizontal displacement of T12 from S1, subjects could translate an average of 54.0 mm to the left and 52.5 mm to the right. The average digitized Cobb T12-L5 angle produced for the 30 translated postures was 16 degrees. Angles ranged from 2.6 degrees to 27.0 degrees. Risser-Ferguson angles averaged 10 degrees between T12 and L5. Statistical correlations were found between Cobb L1-5 and translation to the left (P=.015), Cobb T12-L5 and translation to the right (P=.024), Risser-Ferguson angle and translation to the left (P=.021), and the lumbosacral angle to the right and trunk translation to the right (P=.027). CONCLUSIONS: During lateral translation of the thorax (trunk list), coupled lumbar lateral flexion resulted in the appearance of a pseudoscoliosis on AP radiographs. For this trunk list posture, Cobb angles are considerable (16 degrees ) and increase as the magnitude of trunk translation increases. Differentiating true structural scoliosis from this pseudoscoliosis would be clinically important. The small coupled axial rotation in trunk list is in contrast to the considerable degree of axial rotation observed in structural idiopathic scoliosis.

A non-randomized clinical control trial of Harrison mirror image methods for correcting trunk list (lateral translations of the thoracic cage) in patients with chronic low back pain.

Spinal trunk list is a common occurrence in clinical practice, but few conservative methods of spinal rehabilitation have been reported. This study is a non-randomized clinical control trial of 63 consecutive retrospective subjects undergoing spinal rehabilitation and 23 prospective volunteer controls. All subjects presented with lateral thoracic-cage-translation posture (trunk list) and chronic low back pain. Initial and follow-up numerical pain rating scales (NRS) and AP lumbar radiographs were obtained after a mean of 11.5 weeks of care (average of 36 visits) for the treatment group and after a mean of 37.5 weeks for the control group. The radiographs were digitized and analyzed for a horizontal displacement of T12 from the second sacral tubercle, verticality of the lumbar spine at the sacral base, and any dextro/levo angle at mid-lumbar spine. Treatment subjects received the Harrison mirror image postural correction methods, which included an opposite trunk-list exercise and a new method of opposite trunk-list traction. Control subjects did not receive spinal rehabilitation therapy, but rather self-managed their back pain. For the treatment group, there were statistically significant improvements (approximately 50%) in all radiographic measurements and a decrease in pain intensity (NRS: 3.0 to 0.8). For the control group, no significant radiographic and NRS differences were found, except in trunk-list displacement of T12 to S1, worsened by 2.4 mm. Mirror image (opposite posture) postural corrective exercises and a new method of trunk-list traction resulted in 50% reduction in trunk list and were associated with nearly resolved pain intensity in this patient population. The findings warrant further study in the conservative treatment of chronic low back pain and spinal disorders.