Heliyon (Aug 2023)
Evaluation of the accuracy of new modalities in the assessment and classification of lumbar lordosis: A comparison to Cobb's angle measurement
Abstract
Background: Because of the association of lumbar lordosis with some clinical conditions such as low back pain, the chiropractic field has emphasized the significance of evaluating the lumbar lordotic status, by measuring Cobb's angle, regarded as the radiological gold standard, for the assessment of lumbar lordosis, on lateral radiographs. However, research has shown that this technique has some considerable drawbacks, mostly in terms of low accuracy and high variability between clinicians when compared with other radiological modalities. The main objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of newly established radiological measurements with one of Cobb's angle methods, for the characterization of lumbar lordosis status in a sample of Lebanese patients aged 15 and above. Material and methods: This retrospective single-center study consisted of measuring Cobb's L1-S1 and Cobb's L1-L5 angles, along with the novel established measurements which are the derivative and the normalized surface area, on 134 lateral radiographs of the lumbar spine of Lebanese patients aged fifteen years old and above, gotten from the Radiology department at Zahra'a’s Hospital in Beirut, performed by two observers using MATLAB. Inter-rater agreement was assessed by calculating the Intra-class correlation coefficients. Spearman correlation was analyzed between both Cobb's angle methods and with the derivative and normalized area respectively. 54 patients of the sample were diagnosed by two radiologists, according to their LL status. ROC curve analysis was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the four techniques used. Data were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 (NY, USA); P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: According to the ROC curve analysis the new methods, which are the derivative and the normalized surface area, displayed lower diagnostic accuracy (AUCderivative = 0.818 and 0.677, AUCsurface area = 0.796 and 0.828) than Cobb's L1-L5 (AUCL1-L5 = 0.924 and 0.929 values) and L1-S1 (AUCL1-S1 = 0.971 and 0.955) angles, in the characterization of hypo and hyperlordotic patients, respectively, in our Lebanese sample consisting of patients aged 15 and above, because of their lower area under the curve's values compared to the traditional Cobb's techniques. The Cobb's L1-S1 has shown to have the highest diagnostic accuracy among the four methods to characterize normal patients from hypo and hyperlordotic ones, by referring to its highest area under the curve's values. However, the sensitivity of Cobb's L1-L5 angle in characterizing hyperlordotic patients was similar to the one of the normalized surface area with a value of 100%.Conclusion: among the four modalities, the new methods didn't show a better diagnostic accuracy compared to the traditional modalities. Cobb's L1-S1 displayed the highest diagnostic accuracy despite its drawbacks. Further prospective studies are needed to validate the cut-offs obtained for Cobb's L1-S1 angle in our sample.
