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.

Intra-Examiner Reliability and Validity of Sagittal Cervical Spine Mensuration Methods Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks.

Background: The biomechanical analysis of spine and postural misalignments is important for surgical and non-surgical treatment of spinal pain. We investigated the examiner reliability of sagittal cervical alignment variables compared to the reliability and concurrent validity of computer vision algorithms used in the PostureRay® software 2024. Methods: A retrospective database of 254 lateral cervical radiographs of patients between the ages of 11 and 86 is studied. The radiographs include clearly visualized C1-C7 vertebrae that were evaluated by a human using the software. To evaluate examiner reliability and the concurrent validity of the trained CNN performance, two blinded trials of radiographic digitization were performed by an extensively trained expert user (US) clinician with a two-week interval between trials. Then, the same clinician used the trained CNN twice to reproduce the same measures within a 2-week interval on the same 254 radiographs. Measured variables included segmental angles as relative rotation angles (RRA) C1-C7, Cobb angles C2-C7, relative segmental translations (RT) C1-C7, anterior translation C2-C7, and absolute rotation angle (ARA) C2-C7. Data were remotely extracted from the examiner's PostureRay® system for data collection and sorted based on gender and stratification of degenerative changes. Reliability was assessed via intra-class correlations (ICC), root mean squared error (RMSE), and R2 values. Results: In comparing repeated measures of the CNN network to itself, perfect reliability was found for the ICC (1.0), RMSE (0), and R2 (1). The reliability of the trained expert US was in the excellent range for all variables, where 12/18 variables had ICCs ≥ 0.9 and 6/18 variables were 0.84 ≤ ICCs ≤ 0.89. Similarly, for the expert US, all R2 values were in the excellent range (R2 ≥ 0.7), and all RMSEs were small, being 0.42 ≤ RMSEs ≤ 3.27. Construct validity between the expert US and the CNN network was found to be in the excellent range with 18/18 ICCs in the excellent range (ICCs ≥ 0.8), 16/18 R2 values in the strong to excellent range (R2 ≥ 0.7), and 2/18 in the good to moderate range (R2 RT C6/C7 = 0.57 and R2 Cobb C6/C7 = 0.64. The RMSEs for expert US vs. the CNN network were small, being 0.37 ≤ RMSEs ≤ 2.89. Conclusions: A comparison of repeated measures within the computer vision CNN network and expert human found exceptional reliability and excellent construct validity when comparing the computer vision to the human observer.

The CBP® mirror image® approach to reducing thoracic hyperkyphosis: a retrospective case series of 10 patients.

[Purpose] To present a case series demonstrating the reduction of thoracic hyperkyphosis by the Chiropractic BioPhysics® multimodal rehabilitation program. [Participants and Methods] Ten randomly selected files and corresponding radiographs were chosen from recent clinic archives of patients who were treated for thoracic hyperkyphosis. All patients were treated by CBP mirror image® thoracic extension traction and exercises, as well as spinal manipulative therapy. [Results] Results demonstrated an average reduction in hyperkyphosis of 11.3° over an average of 25 treatments, over an average of 9 weeks. Patients also experienced a reduction in pain levels and disability ratings. [Conclusion] Postural hyperkyphosis is a serious progressive deformity that is related to a plethora of symptoms, syndromes, and early death. Thoracic hyperkyphosis may be reduced/corrected by posture-specific, thoracic extension protocols including mirror image extension traction and exercises, as well as spinal manipulation as part of the CBP multi-modal rehabilitation program.

Resolution of temporomandibular joint dysfunction (TMJD) by correcting a lateral head translation posture following previous failed traditional chiropractic therapy: a CBP® case report.

[Purpose] To present the case of the resolution of right temporomandibular joint dysfunction (TMJD) following the correction of a right lateral head translation posture. [Subject and Methods] A 24 year old female reported facial pain and jaw clicking in the right TMJ. Radiography revealed a 19 mm right head (shift) translation posture. TMJ vibration analysis showed characteristic abnormalities for the right TMJ. The patient was treated with CBP® technique mirror image® left sided exercises, and traction methods as well as spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). [Results] After 36 treatments over a 12-week time period, a complete correction of the lateral head posture was achieved corresponding with a complete resolution of jaw pain and clicking. TMJ vibration analysis demonstrated normal right side TMJ characteristics following treatment. [Conclusion] Abnormal head/neck postures, such as lateral head translation, may be an unrealized source of TMJD and may be explained through the 'regional interdependence' model or by how seemingly unrelated anatomy may be associated with a primary complaint.