Scoliosis: extract (1) of an interview with Professor
Transcript
Scoliosis: extract (1) of an interview with Professor
Scoliosis: extract (1) of an interview with Professor Paolo Raimondi on pathological vertebral rotation. Relationship between the assessment of vertebral rotation measured with a Formetric scan and that measured using the Raimondi method. By A. Di Michele Keywords: scoliosis, vertebral rotation, Formetric With the view of looking into the problems of vertebral rotation in scoliosis more in depth, I have accompanied Professor Raimondi during the course of his university degree (Faculty of Sport Sciences, Department of Engineering for Mechanics, Energy and Management at the University of L'Aquila) and have been able to witness a great many measurements taken through various types of x-ray and imaging systems. Over this lengthy period of time (the work on the research thesis continued for approximately two years), I had opportunities to ask him many questions that arose out of either doubt or curiosity. I was able to join a few conferences on the Raimondi measurement methodology, and many questions were resolved. Consequently, with my questions answered, my doubts cleared and my curiosity satisfied, I was introduced to a "mathematical world" that led me to conclude that the "Raimondi method" is infallible if applied according to the research results that he has carried out and using only the raw data collected in the various manuals. However, it is not free from mistakes (as he continuously reminds us) due to the mathematical mean of the data gathered to produce a small table or rule for quick consultation. My questions and answers were thus adapted during the drafting of the chapter, through which the difficulty of the research method can be understood. Q: What is the difficulty in measuring vertebral rotation accurately? A: The measurement of vertebral rotation nowadays is not difficult using the current technologies. However, measuring pathological vertebral rotation is more complex. Current radiographic technologies, x-graphics, tomography, xerography, stereo radiography, etc., cannot give accurate or approximate measurements of pathological rotated vertebrae, because these present great and diverse deformities and spatial alterations in the case of grave scoliosis. Furthermore, vertebral rotation--particularly pathological vertebral rotation, where the rotation must be measured in relation to the vertical rotation axis--does not rotate following the accepted standards. Moreover, we know the physiological rotation of a vertebra and the stages it goes through, but we don’t know how the moment of a deformed vertebra varies and how the rotational axis develops in relation to its angle. No technology has been able to assess the actual spatial positioning of a deformed vertebra, nor the angle of its vertical axis. We know very well that, in order to assess the rotation of a vertebra, we must know exactly how its vertical axis is positioned in space. All the technologies available today, including three-dimensional imaging, assess the vertebra by considering only one of its aspects. However, this is merely an image that is hypothesized by the computer. I know of various works on the three-dimensional imaging of scoliotic curves and vertebral rotation,(2-23) but each work originates from a reconstruction and therefore shows all the inaccuracies of such reconstruction. The group that studies bioengineering applications in the Department of Mechanical Engineering of the University of L'Aquila has devised a three-dimensional model of the spine, but only after many years of study. This 3-D model that reproduces the spinal movement, with its deformities in the case of hunching, is still not exhaustive in view of discussed above, even though it has yielded remarkable results. Q: How did you initiate the idea of devising a method to measure vertebral rotation? I started developing my interest in scoliosis rehabilitation in 1968. At that time, little was known compared to now, and I am not aware of methods available to measure vertebral rotation in scoliosis. We used the traditional Fergusson(24) method to measure the degree of curvature, but that didn’t provide accurate readings for curvatures in excess of 50°. Subsequently, the Scoliosis Research Society devised the Cobb method as a standard of measurement. This method, like anything else, has its merits and faults. One cannot measure the curvature itself with the Cobb angle but can only measure the inclination of the upper- and lower-limit vertebrae. Unfortunately, that can create a false picture of the curvature. As a matter of fact, the inclination of an upper- or lower-limit vertebra can’t represent the overall change in curvature. The measurement of the vertebral rotation was certainly studied by Nash and Moe.(25) The study was carried out on thoracic and lumbar sections using shadows with known rotational increments as landmarks, which highlighted, among other things, the measurement differentiation between the spinous process and the pedicle. By combining the two parts of the study, the authors proposed a simplified method for the assessment of vertebral rotation as a relationship between the pedicle movement and the degrees of rotation. It was in 1975 that I read the work by Nash and Moe and realized that this method, despite its suitability relative to that day and age, was approximate in that the measurements were taken using the radiographic shadow movements of the convex pedicle (which moved toward the cavity of the scoliotic curve), which was given a rotational value determined by the sections into which the vertebra had previously been divided. In 1975, I started to think of new, more accurate solutions to measure vertebral rotation because, even if the Cobb angle was important, the evaluation of scoliosis also had to consider the vertebral rotational value. Indeed, only the pathological rotation of the vertebrae and their warping change the direction of weight distribution and moments of the vertebrae themselves with the subsequent indentation, worsening and collapse of the spine. After all, in a rehabilitation environment I saw x-rays of scolioses cases with mild curvatures that did not show any vertebral rotations or any deformities of the vertebral body. However, I also saw severe curves that consistently presented such rotations and deformities. During that period, I met a pathologist-anatomist with whom I discussed the issue. He had formerly conducted autopsies and therefore provided me with two spines--one of which was scoliotic--and a couple of teaching plastic ones. His advice was very useful. The study to find a simple methodology by which to measure vertebral rotation was carried out between 1975 and 1985 and was then presented at the World Conference International Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, at Cuneo in 1986. Q: How was the method devised? A: We had many difficulties and very high costs. Along with the two original spine samples, we used many teaching spines, from which I cut out individual vertebrae and created deformations by indenting them. Initially, the theoretical problem pertained to defining the rotation axes and taking into account the axes of individual vertebrae as well as the axes of various segments from the spine, because the axis of rotation of a vertebra is also correlated to the topographic location of the spine. Other difficulties resulted from the rotation difference between the vertebrae, particularly the lumbar ones due to their "bean"-like structure. Additionally, the anatomical indications of the texts, which reported various degree of rotation that the vertebrae could undergo, didn't quite match: More specifically, they would match if the vertebrae weren’t deformed. However, once a vertebra was deformed there wasn't any correspondence and all the parameters changed. For example, if a thoracic physiological vertebra, at the T6/T7 level physiologically rotates at about 8°, it rotates differently if it is indented or rather deformed. For example, if the line of the thoracic vertebrae has a rotation range of about 70°, when you measure the same line with deformed vertebrae, the degree of rotation don’t match. In all of the works I’ve studied, as written by various authors, the researchers would perform the measurement with physiological vertebrae. There are few authors who correlated the five basic parameters to each vertebra (on which my method is based), namely the orientation of the vertical axis, the diameter of the vertebral body, the trocosi of the posterior arch, the shift of the vertical axis of the pedicle and the vertebral deformation. (Fig. 1) The images presented by various authors in the study of vertebral rotation always show the rotation of a normal vertebra on a plane (Fig. 1). One can rarely observe the rotation with various modifications of the vertebra and of the three-dimensional orientation or of the elective rotational plane. This is not good, because a deformed vertebra, although it rotates around its vertical axis, is closely related to the horizontal plane, which in this case is oblique; because the deformation of the posterior arch, changing the articulated relationship between the facet joints and therefore the direction of rotation, changes the rotation of the vertebra with respect to a physiological vertebra; because the lateral inclination of the vertebra acts on the rotative capacity, given that the different geometrical constitution of the facet joints allows for infinite rotating possibilities; etc. (Fig. 2) One aspect is to calculate the rotation of a healthy vertebra, which rotates on a perfectly even vertebral level. Another aspect is to calculate the rotation of a vertebra that rotates on an uneven vertebral level, as is the case of a deformed vertebra. In this case, the tangential rotating slide occurs on an uneven, deformed surface, which may present multiple conformations. In such cases, for some degree of rotation the vertebra can perform the rotating slide on a horizontal surface or, for some degrees, on an inclined surface by changing its axis of rotation (Fig. 2). This changes the vertical axis of rotation, meaning the rotation itself as well as the value of rotation. In fact, for the same movement on a horizontal plane (from x to y) of a vertebra whose rotation level is even and a vertebra whose level is uneven, the value of rotation, the inclination of the vertical axis and the inclination of the horizontal axis are not the same, just as the degree of rotation can’t be the same. Besides the difficulties I've just mentioned, others pertain to manipulating the vertebrae in order to deform them, wedge them and make their rotation plans crooked. There was the difficulty of sectioning the pedicles and getting to their roots, and of tracing the major axis of the pedicles with great precision and inserting a very thin hot sheet as an extension of the axis and a guide in order to detect the very small rotational movements. It has also been very difficult to correlate the degree of rotation with the linear movement, having to measure them in millimeters with a ruler or boards, on a plane. Other challenges emerged through the research of technicians who were able to build the rotation device, finding the micro-motors that could rotate the vertebra in a micrometric way, searching for centesimal protractors, collecting and processing data, and then presenting them in a practical way and other things that are difficult to recall. In conclusion, I've destroyed two anatomical columns and a dozen of educational columns. Q: As for the data, how was the ruler set up (or the boards)? A. For each vertebra, we measured the diameter of the central part of the body--meaning its narrowest point--as well as the distance of the vertical axis from the pedicle to the lateral side of the body, the axis of rotation, the degree of rotation and the metric movement. If we take into account the fact that we've made hundreds of measurements for each vertebra; if we take into account that those hundreds of measurements were repeated on each vertebra of a spine, changing the inclination of the axis of rotation by one degree for 60 degrees (if I remember correctly) or perhaps more; if we take into account that this was repeated with different vertebrae from at least a dozen educational columns; if we take into account that we had to report the degrees in millimeters, I think we’ve collected about 30,000 to 40,000 pieces of data. The collected data were classified according to the corresponding vertebrae of the other columns, to the diameter of the vertebral body, to the distance of the pedicles and to the spatial arrangement of the axis of rotation. This amounted to 21 books (as many as the vertebrae we've studied: four cervical, excluding the first three due to insurmountable difficulties; 12 thoracic; and five lumbar), each of which contained thousands of data. However, the hardest thing was yet to come. As a matter of fact, all those numbers were of little use if not just to demonstrate the degree of rotation of the vertebrae. We had to decide how to summarize and present them in such a way that they could be synthesized. The description was very difficult because of the thousands of pieces of data we had collected. So, in order to ensure that the different diameters corresponded to different vertebrae, we made the average of all the values we had collected. Then, step by step, by doing mathematical averages, the large amount of data was reduced in order to be presented on a slide ruler. Q: Why are there a ruler version and a table version? A: There are four reasons. First, in the study of the lumbar spine, among many L5 vertebrae that were analyzed according to the measurement value imposed by methodology, we found a single educational vertebra with a 64mm diameter and one with a 70mm diameter. All the other L5 vertebrae didn't reach these values. The diameters of the two columns of the L5 vertebral body (anatomical evidence), with regard to the measurement value given by the methodology, were 57mm and 60mm. These are values that I remember very well, because they were reasons for great reflection in order to decide whether we should continue our research up to 70mm in diameter (the detection value). Secondly, contrary to the values we had obtained up to about 60mm, which resulted from the study of more vertebrae of the same type, from 60 to 70mm, the study was done by manipulating vertebrae with known diameters. That is, in order to obtain data up to 70mm in diameter (still referring to the measurement value) the diameter of the vertebra of 60mm together with all the other parameters (particularly those of the peduncles) was artificially increased to 70mm by adding a layer of synthetic material. All this was because we couldn't find vertebrae that had such diameters. Coming back to your question, I remember that during a conference where I gave a lecture on vertebral rotation in scoliosis and was illustrating the use of the ruler (which indicated the vertebral diameter up to 60mm), some participants pointed out that perhaps that diameter wasn’t sufficient for a lumbar vertebra (although the measurement value of the vertebral diameter didn’t exceed 60mm). While arguing that such large vertebrae couldn’t be human, in order to prevent other such observations and having the data available (even if they were artificially made, as shown), we designed the tables by increasing the body diameter. Thirdly, I wanted to suggest a "pocket" ruler but, by increasing the length of the ruler due to more data, it wouldn't have been very handy. Fourthly, reading tables proved to be faster and more practical while offering the possibility of observing the performance of various values. Moreover, the tables could be published in any text and were therefore usable by everyone, as opposed to the ruler. Q: How reliable is the Raimondi method? A: Probably the methodology would be free of errors and a hundred percent reliable if, for measuring and assessing data, one would refer to the actual data collected during research, because it’s hard mathematical data. One can’t use all that data, however, or the method would lose its efficiency and speed of use. Moreover, I don't consider that absolute accuracy is vital because, from doing measurements on an x-ray to detecting the degree of rotation, you can encounter two types of errors. I call the first error a "genetic" one and the second an operational one, being equal for all methods. The genetic error of the Raimondi method is due to the fact that tens of thousands of pieces of data were synthesized in exactly 3,000, as reported on the tables, which originate from the averages of various discovered values. A vertebra with a 30mm diameter and a pedicle distance of 7mm provides a 20° rotation. However, the 30mm diameter reported on rulers (or tables) contains an average of the diameters of several vertebrae subjected to measurement. Let me give you an example. The mathematical value of 30mm (on the ruler or tables) includes mathematical values of vertebrae ranging from 29.6 to 30.5mm in diameter. This generates an error, because the tenths of a millimeter (although unnecessary) aren’t included on the tables (or rulers). Still, the measurement of a vertebra 29.5mm in diameter (depending on the operator) can be considered a vertebra with a 29mm diameter or a 30mm diameter. This generates an additional error that affects the degree of rotation. Then there are errors that might occur in all the measurement methodologies originating from variable amounts, which I define as being ”operational.” There are errors that arise due to the impossibility of establishing with certainty the radiographic shadow; from the difficulty (but also from the operator's error) of measuring the distance between the vertebral edges and the pedicles; from the difficulty of identifying the major axis of the pedicle; from interpreting, from higher or lower approximations; from tracing evidences, etc. It is clear that none of these variables can determine precise measurements. During various experiments I’ve conducted together with other operators in this field, I've rarely observed unambiguous values. I've always noticed differences of one, two, five degrees (sometimes even more) between one operator and another. However, I believe the difference of two or three degrees is not relevant in measuring a rotation. Having said that, I like to remember a sentence that Weiss once said:(26) “The Raimondi ruler is easier to use and is slightly more reliable.” I'd like to add that, in the Italian guidelines for treating scoliosis and other spinal deformities,(27) it is desirable to use the Perdriolle torque (another method of measurement) or the Raimondi method as a means to measure vertebral rotation. I think the fact that, internationally, the Raimondi method is confirmed, discussed, used and criticized(26-32) while also being used as a reference to validate other methods is a good sign of ”reliability.” Usually, the criticism is positive. I'd like to close with a statement by Rigo(29) that fits perfectly: "The Raimondi method is also a useful and practical tool with which to measure the vertebral rotation directly on the computer screen in a clinical setting . . . but it should be used with caution when making decisions." Q: What do you think of the various three-dimensional analysis studies and the Formetric? A: I don't really have a completely positive opinion about 3-D analysis in general. Many studies are done superficially. Some researchers have tackled 3-D analysis by reconstructing the column from two x-rays--latero-lateral and posterior-anterior--following the exact identification of anatomical markers according to various protocols: An x-ray of the election plane of the spine is missing, let's say, a projection of approximately 30 to 45 degrees. Then, others suggest replacing the 3-D analysis of x-rays, which is not possible because vertebral deformations, rotations and values of lateral flexion can’t be assessed with adequate precision. More than being a 3-D analysis of the column, it’s a formal reconstruction of the trunk from which we get the hypothetical “spinometry”. Confronting this issue would take a long time. Here’s an example for everyone: A deposit of fat or muscle hypertrophy on one side of the column, a salience due to any reason, having nothing to do with the scoliotic curve, can be interpreted by the instrument as a salience or a hump. Currently, for the various assessment investigations of the spinal column, reasonably accurate techniques are used: from simple x-rays to more sophisticated radiological techniques (the 3-D reconstruction of the spine is achieved through many methods, based on x-rays, CT, digital radiology, the most complicated stereo-radiography, etc.). However, the difficulty for clinical applications is inherent in the exact spatial reconstruction, which must indicate the exact placement of the vertebrae. Certain rare studies have been made to verify the precise orientation of the vertebrae, but it isn’t easy to determine, for each vertebra, the orientation relative to the beginning of the rotation, and ultimately, when calculating the various transformations it can undergo from the initial position (physiological spatial position) to the final (scoliotic spatial position). It isn’t easy. We, the Mechanical Engineering Department of Aquila, have also tried to do something in that regard, but the moment everything seemed perfect some new variable would be added for consideration and we’d have a new problem to solve. One researcher is even building a three-dimensional model with ligaments and muscle activities that highlights the tissue deformation depending on the movements of the spinal column. The research is currently in progress. Otherwise, to assess the current situation of the posture of a torso, the techniques generally used involve the metric measurement of the photograph and observation, but this results in various questions regarding the actual accuracy. In fact, the observation and measurement, even when subjected to a protocol, are personal evaluations and can therefore differ from operator to operator. Additionally, different authors use different methodologies that, even if they're seldom repeated, provide the same result. Focusing on the second part of the question, I believe the introduction of the Formetric technique in the analysis of the spine (as it is understood and based on its promises), in contrast to other techniques, is not meant to replace radiography but that, in addition to the many fundamental parameters it is able to acquire, it has definitely rendered obsolete all the tools used to date. It allows us to code the assessment; it renders the same evaluation repeatable without the use of various instruments; it facilitates and integrates the postural measurements (which we know are abundant and subject to multiple factors, some of which are detectable only by the expert physician); it doesn’t produce side effects; it allows the "photographic" view of the exam; it allows the complete reading of the acquired parameters; it provides a good approximation of the vertebral coordinates; there is no need to position a marker on the subject; the instrument can be supplemented with other methods of evaluation; it can be extremely useful in the screening; it can assist in evaluating the effects of prosthetics; and it facilitates the easier compilation of statistics. The Formetric scanner (but not spinography, as some may write) in this case is indispensable to the physician as a supplement to his/her assessment as a specialist, both through the postural and purely clinical perspectives. It can be a supplement to (along with other instrumental analyses) the physiotherapist in evaluating the rehabilitative path of subjects with spinal alterations of different levels, before and during the rehabilitation periods; it can be helpful to the doctor of sports medicine in postural and/or morphological assessment; and it can be helpful to the expert in the human body. With appropriate technological supplements, the device is capable of detecting several parameters useful for a mechanical/anthropometric assessment of the body. In the various levels of alterations of the spinal column, this technology is highly effective and efficient, and it’s free of any contraindication from other research methods. Therefore, considering the premises and promise that such an instrument offers, I can state (based on my modest skills) that I have an excellent opinion of the spinal measurement detections; a great opinion regarding the detection of various levels of curves and their correlation with vertebral rotation; a good opinion regarding the truthfulness of the data; and a satisfactory opinion of the cost of the equipment. At a lesser price, this equipment would be "the best" for any expert on the subject. Q- What are some of the criticisms that other authors have made in regard to the "Raimondi" method? A- I met Perdriolle in a conference many years ago, and he congratulated me on the ingenious method. This is the best criticism I could quote, because Perdriolle is a master. Generally, the criticism is positive, but it doesn't take away from the fact that most operators who criticize the method use it improperly or don't know how to use it (which of course generates many errors). I’ve had the opportunity to observe many documents on the Web, as well as many forums and debates on the methodology, but often I was able to certify that the operations weren’t relevant. I’ll give you an example: The measurement of the distance from a spinal border and the contralateral in radiography has to be taken halfway from the quoted height of the vertebra. Thus the fact that at times it isn’t possible to do so is criticized. It's true, just as it’s true that the radiographic shadow of the trunk in large rotation is sometimes confused. So, there! I don’t accept this criticism, because in all my work where I write about the vertebral rotation, even if I advise one to detect the distance of the lateral borders halfway from the height of the vertebra, I add that a measurement alteration of about a millimeter (from the indicated quote) above or below does not cause great errors because, proportionally, if it increases the vertebral diameter it also increases the distance between the border and the major axis of the trunk. This compensates for the degree of rotation. Nevertheless, as with any method of measurement that is subject to various errors--as in the measurement of Cobb degrees--there exists a margin of measurement error (usually (± 5°)), and even in the Raimondi method there is a margin of error. It cannot be otherwise, considering the fact we're evaluating something that already contains errors from the beginning (radiography). Moreover, if a vertebra is so deformed that markers cannot be identified, then the diameter of the vertebra below and above the one being measured can be detected, the average can be calculated and the resulting value can be assigned to the vertebra with the diameter that cannot otherwise be measured. For example, if the diameter of an L2 cannot be measured, one should proceed as follows: The diameter of the L1 is measured (37 mm), followed by the diameter of the L3 (41 mm.). The average of the two values is 39 mm. Therefore, the diameter of 39 mm can be assigned to the L2 vertebra. The error is minimal in this case, but at least we have measured the vertebra. In the possible re-measurement, if the same operational difficulty remains, one can proceed in the same manner. However, we often observe that generally half of the vertebra being measured is perfectly legible while the other half demonstrates overlapping signs that make measurement impossible. Therefore, in such a case, since half the vertebra is legible, one can calculate the diameter knowing the value of its half. In other words, there are several measurement strategies. Rigo(29) asserts that we must use the method with caution. It's true. I would add that we should also use a bit of good commonsense, because all that is "of the human body" is difficult to measure. Q: How would you define the Formetric scanner after having studied it to verify the thesis you presented, and having participated in the acquisition of measurements? A: In much of my work on vertebral rotation, I always confirm that all vertebral measurement methods, including mine, are inaccurate. I will add that only with future virtual-reality techniques can it be possible to determine the vertebral rotation with minimal error. In the early days of technology--in the days of the Integrated Shape Imaging System--I had various doubts. Eventually, with rasterstereographic techniques, my doubts decreased. Currently, after my evaluation and having expressed my humble opinion earlier, I think the Formetric scanner can be considered as “homo sapiens" in the evolution of morphological detection, starting from the primordial "moiré effect,” and certainly, in its future inevitable evolution, it could be considered as the “homo sapiens sapiens" of detection in the human anthropometric measurement technique. Bibliography 1) Conversation with Paolo Raimondi on vertebral rotation, recorded in October 2010. Faculty of Sports Sciences of the Univeristy of Aquila. 2) André B, Dansereau J, Labelle H. Optimized vertical stereo base radiographic setup for the clinical three-dimensional reconstruction of the human spine. J Biomech. 1994;27:1023-1035 3) Aubin C, Dansereau J, Parent F, Labelle H, Guise J. Morphometric evaluations of personalised three-dimensional reconstructions and geometric models of the human spine. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1997;35:611-618. 4) Benameur S, Mignotte M, Labelle H, Guise J. A hierarchical statistical modeling approach for the unsupervised three-dimensional biplanar reconstruction of the scoliotic spine. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2005;52:2041-2057. 5) Chen YT, Wang MS. Three-dimensional reconstruction and fusion for multi-modality spinal images. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2004;28:21-31. 6) Cholewicki J, Crisco J, Oxland T, Yamamoto I, Panjabi M. Effects of posture and structure on three-dimensional coupled rotations in the lumbar spine: a biomechanical analysis. Spine. 1996;21:2421-2428. 7) Dumas R, Steib JP, Mitton D, Lavaste F, Skalli W. Three-dimensional quantitative segmental analysis of scoliosis corrected by the in situ contouring technique. Spine. 2003;28:1158-1162. 8) Gille O, Champain N, Benchikh-El-Fegoun A, Vital JM, Skalli W. Reliability of threedimensional reconstruction of the spine of mild scoliotic patients. Spine. 2007;32:568-573. 9) Huynh T, Dansereau J, Maurais G. Development of a vertebral endplate three-dimensional reconstruction technique. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1997;16:689-696. 10) Labelle H, Dansereau J, Bellefleur C, Jéquier J. Variability of geometric measurements from three-dimensional reconstructions of scoliotic spines and rib cages. Eur Spine J. 1995;4:88-94. 11) Lee SM, Suk SI, Chung ER. Direct vertebral rotation: a new technique of three-dimensional deformity correction with segmental pedicle screw fixation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2004;29:343-349. 12) Masharawi Y, Rothschild B, Dar G, Peleg S, Robinson D, Been EIH. Facet orientation in the thoracolumbar spine: three-dimensional anatomic and biomechanical analysis. Spine. 2004;29:1755-1763. 13) Mitton D, Landry C, Véron S, Skalli W, Lavaste F, Guise J. Three-dimensional reconstruction method from biplanar radiography using non-stereocorresponding points and elastic deformable meshes. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2000;38:133-139. 14) Mitulescu A, Semaan I, Guise J, Leborgne P, Adamsbaum C, Skalli W. Validation of the nonstereo corresponding points stereoradiographic three-dimensional reconstruction technique. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2001;39:152-158. 15) Pearcy M, Tibrewal S. Axial rotation and lateral bending in the normal lumbar spine measured by three-dimensional radiography. Spine. 1984;9:582-587. 16) Pomero V, Mitton D, Laporte S, Guise J, Skalli W. Fast accurate stereoradiographic threedimensional reconstruction of the spine using a combined geometric and statistic model. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2004;19:240-247. 17) Skalli W, Lavaste F, Descrimes JL. Quantification of three-dimensional vertebral rotations in scoliosis: what are the true values? Spine. 1995;20:546-553. 18) Stokes I. Three-dimensional terminology of spinal deformity: a report presented to the Scoliosis Research Society by the Scoliosis Research Society Working Group on three-dimensional terminology of spinal deformity. Spine. 1994;19:236-248. 19) Tan S, Teo E, Chua H. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae of Chinese Singaporeans. Eur Spine J. 2004;13:137-146. 20) Tan S, Teo E, Chua H. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae of Chinese Singaporeans. Eur Spine J. 2004;13:137-146. 21) Vrtovec T, Likar B, Pernuš F. Automated curved planar reformation of three-dimensional spine images. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:4527-4540. 22) Vrtovec T, Pernuš F, Likar B (2008) A symmetry-based method for the determination of vertebral rotation in three dimensions. In: Metaxas D, Axel L, Davies B (eds) Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS): proceedings of the 11th medical image computing and computerassisted intervention-MICCAI 2008, Springer, New York, NY, USA, Volume 5241, pp.942-950. 23) Yao J, O’Connor S, Summers R (2006) Automated spinal column extraction and partitioning. In: proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international symposium on biomedical imaging: from nano to macro-ISBI 2006. IEEE, Arlington, VA, USA, pp.390-393. 24) Fergusson AB, Roentgen Diagnosis of the extremities and spine. Paul B. Hoeber, Inc., New York, 1945, pp.261,275. 25) Nash CL, Moe JH. A study of vertebral rotation J. of bone and joint surgery 1969;51:223-229. 26) Weiss HR. Measurement of vertebral rotation: Perdriolle versus Raimondi Eur Spine J 1995;4(1):34-8. 27) Negrini et al. Italian guidelines on rehabilitation treatment of adolescents with scoliosis or other spinal deformities. Eur Medicophys 2005;41:183-201 28) D’Amico M, Merolli A, Santabrogio GC. Three-dimensional analysis of spinal deformities. IOS PRESS. 1995, pp.243-45. 29) Rigo M. Villagrassa M. Technical error of vertebral rotation measurement directly on the computer screen, according to Raimondi Method. Scoliosis 2010;5(1):0-14. 30) Alan P. Pinheiro, Michelle C. Tanure and Anamaria S. Oliveira Validity and reliability of a computer method to estimate vertebral axial rotation from digital radiographs. Eur Spine J 2009;19(3):415-20. 31) Defino HLA; Araújo, PHM. Comparative study of the measurements of the vertebral rotation using Nash & Moe and Raimondi methods. Acta ortop. bras. 2003;vol.12 (3):167-173. 32) Pinheiro AP, TanureMC, Oliveira AS. Validity and reliability of a computer method to estimate vertebral axial rotation from digital radiographs. Eur Spine J 2010;19(3):415-20.