The reliability of video fluoroscopy,ultrasound imaging,magnetic resonance imaging and radiography for measurements of lumbar spine segmental range of motion in-vivo : A review
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online January, 2023
The reliability of video fluoroscopy,ultrasound imaging,magnetic resonance imaging and radiography for measurements of lumbar spine segmental range of motion in-vivo : A review
Lower back pain (LBP) is a principal cause of disability worldwide and is associated with a variety of spinal conditions. Individuals presenting with LBP may display changes in spinal motion. Despite this, the ability to measure lumbar segmental range of motion (ROM) non-invasively remains a challenge.
OBJECTIVE:
To review the reliability of four non-invasive modalities: Video Fluoroscopy (VF), Ultrasound imaging (US), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Radiography used for measuring segmental ROM in the lumbar spine in-vivo.
METHODS:
The methodological quality of seventeen eligible studies, identified through a systematic literature search, were appraised.
RESULTS:
The intra-rater reliability for VF is excellent in recumbent and upright positions but errors are larger for intra-rater repeated movements and inter-rater reliability shows larger variation. Excellent results for intra- and inter-rater reliability are seen in US studies and there is good reliability within- and between-day. There is a large degree of heterogeneity in MRI and radiography methodologies but reliable results are seen.
CONCLUSIONS:
Excellent reliability is seen across all modalities. However, VF and radiography are limited by radiation exposure and MRI is expensive. US offers a non-invasive, risk free method but further research must determine whether it yields truly consistent measurements.
BuchbinderRBlythFMarchL. Placing the global burden of low back pain in context. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2013; 27(5): 575-589.
2.
Global Burden of Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional and national incidence, prevalence and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2017; 390(10100): 1211-1259.
3.
ManiadakisNGrayAMarchL. The economic burden of back pain in the UK. Pain. 2000; 84(1): 95-103.
4.
RamdasJJellaV. Prevalence and risk factors of low back pain. Int J Adv Med. 2018; 5(5): 1120-1123.
5.
MaetzelALiL. The economic burden of low back pain: A review of studies published between 1996 and 2001. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2002; 16(1): 23-30.
6.
MurrayCVosTLozanoR, et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2010. 2002; 16(1): 23-30.
7.
ReevesNCholewickiJMilnerT, et al. Trunk antagonist co-activation is associated with impaired neuromuscular performance. Exp Brain Res. 2008; 188(3): 457-463.
8.
HodgesPvan den HoornWDawsonT, et al. Changes in the mechanical properties of the trunk in low back pain may be associated with recurrence. J Biomech. 2009; 42(1): 61-66.
9.
KarayannisNSmeetsRvan den HoornW, et al. Fear of movement is related to trunk stiffness in low back pain. PLoS One. 2013; 8(6): e67779.
10.
KuligKPowersCLandelR, et al. Segmental lumbar mobility in individuals with low back pain: in vivo assessment during manual and self-imposed motion using dynamic MRI. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007; 8(8): [10 p]. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-8-8.
11.
GolightlyYGoodeAClevelandR, et al. FRI0598 relationship of joint hypermobility with low back pain and lumbar spine osteoarthritis: A cohort study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016; 75: 659.
12.
Haxby AbbottJFritzJMcCaneB, et al. Lumbar segmental mobility disorders: Comparison of two methods of defining abnormal displacement kinematics in a cohort of patients with non-specific mechanical low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006; 7: 45.
13.
Trudelle-JacksonEFleisherLBormanN, et al. Lumbar spine flexion and extension extremes of motion in women of different age and racial groups: The WIN study. Spine. 2010; 35(16): 1539-1544.
14.
FritzJErhardRHagenB, et al. Segmental instability of the lumbar spine. Phys Ther. 1998; 78(8): 889-896.
15.
GercekEHartmannFKuhnS, et al. Dynamic angular three-dimensional measurement of multisegmental thoracolumbar motion in vivo. Spine. 2008; 33(21): 2326-2333.
16.
RozumalskiASchwartzMWerveyR, et al. The in vivo three-dimensional motion of the human lumbar spine during gait. Gait Posture. 2008; 28(3): 378-384.
17.
ParkSFayyaziAYonemuraK, et al. An in vivo kinematic comparison of dynamic lumbar stabilization to lumbar discectomy and posterior lumbar fusion using radiostereometric analysis. Int J Spine Surg. 2012; 1(6): 87-92.
18.
DombrowskiMRynearsonBLeVasseurC, et al. ISSLS prize bioengineering science 2018: Dynamic imaging of degenerative spondylolisthesis reveals mid-rang dynamic lumbar instability not evident on static clinical radiographs. Eur Spine J. 2018; 27(4): 752-762.
19.
OkawaAShinomiyaKKomoriH, et al. Dynamic motion study of the whole lumbar spine by videofluoroscopy. Spine. 1998; 23(16): 1743-1749.
20.
TakayanagiKTakahashiKYamagataM, et al. Using cineradiography for continuous dynamic-motion analysis of the lumbar spine. Spine. 2001; 26(17): 1858-1865.
21.
McGregorAAndertonLGedroycW, et al. The use of interventional open MRI to assess the kinematics of the lumbar spine in patients with spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2002; 27(4): 1582-1586.
22.
HuangKLineRLeeY, et al. Factors affecting disability and physical function in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis of L4–5: Evaluation with axially loaded MRI. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18(12): 1851-1857.
23.
ChlebounGAmwayMHillJ, et al. Measurement of segmental lumbar spine flexion and extension using ultrasound imaging. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012; 42(10): 880-885.
24.
PageMMcKenzieJBossuytP, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: 071. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
25.
Health Topics, Study Quality Assessment Tools: Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies [internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; [cited 2019 Dec 16]. NHLBI. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools.
26.
HaasMNyiendoJPetersonC, et al. Interrater reliability of roentgenological evaluation of the lumbar spine in lateral bending. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1990; 13(4).
27.
MaigneJLapeyreEMorvanG, et al. Pain immediately upon sitting down and relieved by standing up is often associated with radiological lumbar instability or marked anterior loss of disc space. Spine. 2003; 28(12): 1327-1334.
28.
BreenAMuggletonJMellorF, et al. An objective spinal motion imaging assessment (OSMIA): Realiability, accuracy and exposure data. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006; 7(1): [10 p]. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-7-1.
29.
CakirBRichterMKäferW, et al. Evaluation of lumbar spine motion with dynamic x-ray. Spine. 2006; 31(11): 1258-1264.
30.
CakirBRichterMPuhlW, et al. Reliability of motion measurements after total disc replacement: The spike and the fin method. Eur Spine J. 2006; 15(2): 165-173.
31.
LandelRKuligKFredericsonM, et al. Intertester reliability and validity of motion assessments during lumbar spine accessory motion testing. Phys Ther. 2008; 88(1): 43-49.
32.
PearsonA,SprattKGenuarioJ, et al. Precision of lumbar intervertebral measurements. Spine. 2011; 36(7): 572-580.
33.
SuiFZhangDLamSCB, et al. Auto-tracking system for human lumbar motion analysis. J Xray Sci Technol. 2011; 19(2): 205-218.
34.
MellorFThomasPThompsonP, et al. Proportional lumbar spine inter-vertebral motion patterns: A comparison of patients with chronic. non-specific low back pain and healthy controls. 2014; 23(10): 2059-2067.
35.
YeagerMCookDChengB. Reliability of computer-assisted lumbar intervertebral measurements using a novel vertebral motion analysis system. Spine J. 2014; 14(2): 274-281.
36.
Cuesta-VargasA. Development of a new ultrasound-based system for tracking motion of the human lumbar spine: Reliability, stability and repeatability during forward bending movement trials. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015; 41(7): 2049-2056.
37.
TozawaRKatohMAramakiH, et al. Reliability and validity of an ultrasound-based imaging method for measuring interspinous process distance in the lumbar spine using two different index points. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015; 27(7): 2333-2336.
38.
du RoseABreenA. Relationships between lumbar inter-vertebral motion and lordosis in healthy adult males: A cross sectional cohort study. Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 [cited 2019 Oct 10]; [9 p]. doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-0975-1.
39.
TozawaRKatohMAramakiH, et al. Absolute and relative reliability of lumbar interspinous process ultrasound imaging measurementss. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016; 28(8): 2210-2213.
40.
BreenAHemmingRMellorF, et al. Intrasubject repeatability of in vivo intervertebral motion parameters using quantitative fluoroscopy. Eur Spine J. 2018; 28(2): 450-460.
41.
MahatoNKMontuelleSClarkBC. Assessment of in vivo lumbar inter-vertebral motion: Reliability of a novel dynamic weight-bearing magnetic resonance imaging technique using a side bending task. Asian Spine J. 2019; 13(3): 377-385.
42.
ModicaMKanalKGunnM. The obese emergency patient: Imaging challenges and solutions. Radiographics. 2011; 31(3): 811-823.
43.
CushmanDFlisAJensenB, et al. The effect of body mass index on fluoroscopic time and radiation dose during sacrioiliac joint injections. PM & R. 2015; 8(8): 767-772.
44.
MetaxasVMessarisGLekatouA, et al. Patient dose in digital radiography utilising BMI classification. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2019; 184(2): 155-167.
45.
DurbridgeG. Magnetic resonance imaging: Fundamental safety issues. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011; 41(11): 820-828.
46.
BreenATeyhenDMellorA, et al. Measurement of intervertebral motion using quantitative fluoroscopy: Report of an international forum and proposal for use in the assessment of degenerative disc disease in the lumbar spine. Adv Orthop. 2012 [cited 2020 Jan 13]; [10 p]. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/aorth/2012/802350/#B22.
47.
DavisRLeeDWadeC, et al. Measurement performance of a computer assisted vertebral motion analysis system. Int J Spine Surg. 2015; 9: [13 p]. doi: 10.14444/2036.
48.
PlocharskiMLindstroemRLindstroemC, et al. Motion analysis of the cervical spine during extension and flexion: Reliability of the vertebral marking procedure. Med Eng Phys. 2018; 61: 81-86.
49.
StergiouNDeckerL. Human movement variability, nonlinear dynamics and pathology: Is there a connection?Hum Mov Sci. 2011; 30(5): 869-888.
50.
KrügerMStraubeAEggertT. The propagation of movement variability in time: A methodological approach for discrete movements with multiple degrees of freedom. Front Comput Neurosci. 2017; 11: [11 p]. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2017.00093.
51.
YukawaYMatsumotoTKollorH, et al. Local sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine and range of motion in 627 asymptomatic subjects: Age-related changes and sex-based differences. Asian Spine J. 2019; 13(4): 663-671.
52.
GalbuseraFNiemeyerFTaoY, et al. ISSLS prize in bioengineering science 2021: in vivo sagittal motion of the lumbar spine in low back pain patients-a radiological big data study. Eur Spine J. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 25]; [9 p]. doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-06729-z.
53.
ManninenHKiekaraOSoimakallioS, et al. Reduction in radiation dose and imaging costs in scoliosis radiography. Application of large-screen intensifier photofluorography. Spine. 1998; 13(4): 409-412.
54.
LamDMcCaneBAllenR, et al. Automated tracking in digitized videofluoroscopy sequences for spine kinematic analysis. Image Vis Comput. 2009; 27(10): 1555-1571.
55.
MuggletonJAllenR. Automatic location of vertebrae in digitilized videofluoroscopic images of the lumbar spine. Med Eng Phys. 1997; 19(1): 77-89.
56.
HarveySHukinsDSmithF, et al. Measurement of lumbar spine intervertebral motion in the sagittal plane using videofluoroscopy. J Back Muculoskelet Rehabil. 2016; 29(3): 445-457.
57.
KimHChoiKKimT. Patients’ radiation dose during videofluoroscopic swallowing studies according to underlying characteristics. Dysphagia. 2013; 28(2): 153-158.
58.
HeidariPFarahbakhshFRostamiM, et al. The role of ultrasound in diagnosis of the causes of low back pain: A review of the literature. Asian J Sports Med. 2015; 6(1): e23803.
59.
MarshburnTHadfieldCSargsyanA, et al. New heights in ultrasound: First report of spinal ultrasound from the international space station. J Emerg Med. 2014; 46(1): 61-70.
60.
The World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (WFUMB). WFUMB policy and statements on safety of ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013; 39(5): 926-929.
61.
AhmedARamakrishnanRRamachandranV, et al. Ultrasound diagnosis and therapeutic intervention in the spine. J Spine Surg. 2018; 4(2): 423-432.
62.
MargaridoCArzolaCBalkiM, et al. Anaesthesiologists’ learning curves for ultrasound assessment of the lumbar spine. Can J Anaesth. 2010; 57(2): 120-126.
63.
HidesJRichardsonCJullG. Use of real-time ultrasound imaging for feedback in rehabilitation. Man Ther. 1998; 3(3): 125-131.
64.
WassenaarMvan RijnRvan TulderM, et al. Magentic resonance imaging for diagnosing lumbar spinal pathology in adult patient with low back pain or sciatica: A diagnostic systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21(2): 220-227.
65.
SettPCrockardH. The value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the follow-up management of spinal injury. Paraplegia. 1991; 29(6): 396-410.
66.
HartwigVGiovannettiGVanelloN. Biological effects and safety in magnetic resonance imaging: A review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009; 6(6): 1778-1798.
67.
National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Laboratory of Cardiac Energetics: What are the technological advantages and limitations (disadvantages) of MRI [internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. [cited 2020 Mar 20]. https://dir.nhlbi.nih.gov/labs/lce/cmri/mri-advantages-limitation.asp.
68.
TarantinoUFanucciElundusiR. Lumbar spine MRI in upright position for diagnosing acute and chronic low back pain: Statistical analysis of morphological changes. J Orthop Taumatol. 2013; 14(1): 15-22.
69.
MicheliniGCorridoreATorloneS. Dynamic MRI in the evaluation of the spine: State of the art. Acta Biomed. 2018; 89: 89-101.
70.
OakleyPHarrisonD. Radiophobia: 7 reasons why radiography used in spine posture rehabilitation should not be feared or avoided. Dose-Response. 2018; 16(2): 1559325818781445.
71.
JanssenMNabihAMoussaW, et al. Evaluation of diagnosis techniques used for spinal injury related back pain. Pain Res Treat. 2011 [cited 2021 Jan 27]; [10 p]. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/prt/2011/478798/.
72.
LeoneAGuglielmiGCassar-PullicinoV, et al. Lumbar intervertebral instability: A review. Radiology. 2007; 245(1): 62-77.
73.
MellorFThomasPBreenA. Moving back: Radiation dose received from lumbar spine quantitative fluoroscopy compared to lumbar spine radiographs with suggestions for dose reduction. Radiography. 2014; 20(3): 251-257.
74.
DaveyEEnglandA. AP versus PA positioning in lumbar spine computed radiography: Image quality and individual organ doses. Radiography. 2014; 21(2): 188-196.
75.
LoganGPikeACopseyB, et al. What do we really know about the appropriateness of radiation emitting imaging for low back pain in primary emergency care? A systematic review and meta-analysis of medical record reviews. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14(12): e0225414.
76.
LaiZSá dos ReisCSunZ. Effective dose and image optimisation of lateral lumbar spine radiography: A phantom study. Eur Radiol Exp. 2020; 4(13): [9 p]. doi: 10.1186/s41747-019-0132-3.
