Advanced Search

Home > Journals > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine > Past Issues > Europa Medicophysica 2000 December;35(4) > Europa Medicophysica 2000 December;35(4):191-6

ISSUES AND ARTICLES   MOST READ   eTOC

CURRENT ISSUEEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL AND REHABILITATION MEDICINE

A Journal on Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation after Pathological Events

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (SIMFER), European Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ESPRM), European Union of Medical Specialists - Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Section (UEMS-PRM), Mediterranean Forum of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (MFPRM), Hellenic Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EEFIAP)
In association with International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ISPRM)
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,063

Frequency: Bi-Monthly

ISSN 1973-9087

Online ISSN 1973-9095

 

Europa Medicophysica 2000 December;35(4):191-6

    ORIGINAL ARTICLES

The lev­el pro­trac­tor: a new sim­ple instru­ment to meas­ure Cobb ­angle and ­back ­hump. A val­i­da­tion ­study

D'Osualdo F., Schierano S., Iannis M. Righini E.

Rehabilitation Centre for Infants, ASL 4 “Medio Friuli”, Udine, Italy

BACKGROUND: The aim of the ­study was to val­i­date the Level Protractor, a sim­ple instru­ment for meas­ur­ing Cobb’s ­angle on radio­graphs and ­back ­hump on scol­i­ot­ic ­patients. The meas­ure­ments per­formed ­with the instru­ment ­were com­pared ­with the tra­di­tion­al Cobb meth­od ­using a rul­er and the pro­trac­tor on X-­rays, and Bunnel’s scol­i­om­e­ter on the ­patient.
METHODS: The ­study is in two ­parts: a) Inter-observ­er ­error meas­ure­ment on radio­graphs. Three dif­fer­ent exam­in­ers eval­u­at­ed 109 radio­graphs: 2 ­using a Level Protractor and 1 ­using the tra­di­tion­al Cobb meth­od. b) Back ­hump meas­ure­ment on 30 ­patients ­with sco­li­o­sis of var­y­ing sever­ity (­back rota­tion 4° to 18°) com­par­ing the Level Protractor ­with Bunnel’s scol­i­om­e­ter.
RESULTS: The ­inter-observ­er ­error on X-­rays was with­in the ­range report­ed by oth­er ­authors ­with ­mean dif­fer­enc­es in the com­par­i­son Level Protractor ver­sus Level Protractor, and Level Protractor ver­sus Cobb’s meth­od of 0.71 (CI 0.16 – 1.25), 0.36 (CI –0.59 – 1.31) and 0,33 (CI –1.23 – 0.57), respec­tive­ly. The stan­dard devi­a­tion of the dif­fer­enc­es ­were small­er ­when com­par­ing Level Protractor ver­sus Level Protractor (2.85°), ­with match­ing val­ues in the oth­er two com­par­i­sons (SD 4.98∞ and 4.74∞, respec­tive­ly). Variance anal­y­sis ­showed a sig­nif­i­cant­ly low­er abso­lute ­inter-observ­er dif­fer­ence in the com­par­i­son Level Protractor ver­sus Level Protractor ­than Level Protractor ver­sus Cobb’s meth­od. In meas­ur­ing ­back ­hump, the Level Protractor yield­ed val­ues ­that ­matched Bunnel’s scol­i­om­e­ter (­diff = 0; r =1).
CONCLUSIONS: The Level Protractor ­appears to be a prac­ti­cal and reli­able instru­ment ­when ­applied to X-ray and ­back ­hump meas­ure­ments. It can be use­ful for min­i­mis­ing meas­ure­ment ­errors and sim­pli­fies ­both pro­ce­dures by ­using a sin­gle instru­ment.

language: English


Full text temporarily not available online. Contact us  REPRINTS

top of page