A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Validation study of arm positions for evaluation of global spinal balance in EOS imaging. | LitMetric

Validation study of arm positions for evaluation of global spinal balance in EOS imaging.

Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yokohama City University, Fukuura 3-9, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa Prefecture, 236-0004, Japan.

Published: October 2016

Background: The sagittal vertical axis (SVA) is important in the evaluation of spinal sagittal balance. Although the "fists-on-clavicles" (FOC) position has been widely used in radiographic examinations, it does not define shoulder flexion in detail. Meanwhile, in EOS imaging, the "hands-on-cheeks" (HOC) position is widely used but has not been well investigated. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relative usefulness of FOC and HOC in investigating SVA.

Materials And Methods: Mean SVA was measured by EOS imaging using standing lateral radiographs of 34 volunteers in four different positions: relaxed (RLX), shoulder flexion at 90° with FOC (FOC90), elbows touching the trunk with FOC (FOCET), and HOC.

Results: The mean SVA was 2.0 ± 2.1 cm in RLX; -1.4 ± 3.2 cm in FOC90; -0.5 ± 3.0 cm in FOCET; and -0.2 ± 2.9 cm in HOC. The negative shift from RLX was significantly greater in FOC90 than in FOCET (-3.4 ± 2.2 vs -2.5 ± 2.4 cm; p = 0.0182). The negative shift from RLX in HOC was almost equal to that in FOCET; the difference was 0.3 cm (-2.2 ± 2.2 vs -2.5 ± 2.4 cm; p = 0.2560).

Conclusion: FOC90 showed a negative SVA shift in comparison with FOCET. The difference in the mean SVA between HOC and FOCET was 0.3 cm, a clinically small difference.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00590-016-1813-8DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

eos imaging
12
shoulder flexion
8
negative shift
8
shift rlx
8
focet difference
8
focet
6
sva
5
hoc
5
validation study
4
study arm
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!