Three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound imaging for quantitative assessment of frontal cobb angles in patients with idiopathic scoliosis – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Measurement of Cobb angle in the frontal plane from radiographs is the gold standard of quantifying spinal deformity in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). As a radiation free alternative, ultrasonography (USG) for quantitative measurement of frontal cobb angles has been reported. However, a systematic review and meta-analysis on the reliability of ultrasound comparing with the gold standard have not yet been reported. Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate (1) the reliability of ultrasound imaging compared with radiographs in measuring frontal cobb angle for screening or monitoring in AIS patients; (2) whether the performance of USG differ when using different anatomical landmarks for measurement of frontal cobb angles. Methods: Systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases for relevant studies. QUADAS-2 was adopted for quality assessment. The intra- and inter-rater reliability of ultrasound measurement in terms of intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was recorded. Mean Absolute Difference (MAD) and Pearson correlation coefficients between frontal cobb angle measured from USG and radiographic measurements, were extracted with meta-analysis performed. Results and discussion: Nineteen studies were included with a total of 2318 patients. The risk of bias of included studies were unclear or high. Pooled MAD of frontal cobb angle measured between USG and radiography was 4.02 degrees (95% CI: 3.28–4.76) with a pooled correlation coefficient of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87–0.93). Subgroup analyses show that pooled correlation was > 0.87 across using various USG landmarks for measurement of frontal cobb angles. There was a high level of heterogeneity between results of the included studies with I2 > 90%. Potential sources of heterogeneity include curve severity, curve types, location of apex, scanning postures, patient demographics, equipment, and operator experience. Despite being the “gold standard”, intrinsic errors in quantifying spinal deformities with radiographs may also be a source of inconsistency. Conclusion: The current systematic review indicated that there is evidence in favor of using USG for quantitative evaluation of frontal cobb angle in AIS. However, the quality of evidence is low due to high risk of bias and heterogeneity between existing studies. Current literature is insufficient to support the use of USG as a screening and/or follow-up method for AIS. Further investigation addressing the limitations identified in this review is required before USG could be adapted for further clinical use.