Prediction of Post-operative Clinical Indices in Scoliosis Correction Surgery Using an Adaptive Neuro-fuzzy Interface System | ||
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery | ||
مقاله 4، دوره 11، شماره 4، تیر 2023، صفحه 241-247 اصل مقاله (824.84 K) | ||
نوع مقاله: RESEARCH PAPER | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22038/abjs.2022.66559.3176 | ||
نویسندگان | ||
Rasoul Abedi1؛ Nasser Fatouraee* 1؛ Mahdi Bostanshirin1؛ Navid Arjmand2؛ hasan ghandhari3 | ||
1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran | ||
2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran | ||
3Bone and Joint Reconstruction Research Center, Shafa Orthopedic Teaching Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Iran | ||
چکیده | ||
Objectives: Accurate estimation of post-operative clinical parameters in scoliosis correction surgery is crucial. Different studies have been carried out to investigate scoliosis surgery results, which were costly, time-consuming, and with limited application. This study aims to estimate post-operative main thoracic cobb and thoracic kyphosis angles in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy interface system. Methods: Distinct pre-operative clinical indices of fifty-five patients (e.g., thoracic cobb, kyphosis, lordosis, and pelvic incidence) were taken as the inputs of the adaptive neuro-fuzzy interface system in four categorized groups, and post-operative thoracic cobb and kyphosis angles were taken as the outputs. To evaluate the robustness of this adaptive system, the predicted values of post-operative angles were compared with the measured indices after the surgery by calculating the root mean square errors and clinical corrective deviation indices, including the relative deviation of post-operative angle prediction from the actual angle after the surgery. Results: The group with inputs for main thoracic cobb, pelvic incidence, thoracic kyphosis, and T1 spinopelvic inclination angles had the lowest root mean square error among the four groups. The error values were 3.0° and 6.3° for the post-operative cobb and thoracic kyphosis angles, respectively. Moreover, the values of clinical corrective deviation indices were calculated for four sample cases, including 0.0086 and 0.0641 for the cobb angles of two cases and 0.0534 and 0.2879 for thoracic kyphosis of the other two cases. Conclusion: In all scoliotic cases, the post-operative cobb angles were lesser than the pre-operative ones; however, the post-operative thoracic kyphosis might be lesser or higher than the pre-operative ones. Therefore, the cobb angle correction is in a more regular pattern and is more straightforward to predict cobb angles. Consequently, their root-mean-squared errors become lesser values than thoracic kyphosis. Level of evidence: IV | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
Cobb angle؛ Pelvic incidence؛ Posterior surgery؛ Spine؛ Thoracic kyphosis | ||
مراجع | ||
1. Schlösser TP, Colo D, Castelein RM. Etiology and pathogenesis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Elsevier; 2015:2-8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semss.2015.01.003 2. Zhao T, Li Y, Dai Z, et al. Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Literature on Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. World Neurosurgery. 2021/04/16/ 2021; 151:e265-e277. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2021.04.020 3. Mohamed M, Trivedi J, Davidson N, Munigangaiah S. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a review of current concepts. Orthopaedics and Trauma. 2020/12/01/ 2020; 34(6):338- 345. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mporth.2020.09.003 4. Sharifmoradi K, Naderi A, Saljoghiyan P. The Effect of Boston Brace on Lower Limb and L5-S1 Joint Contact Forces during Walking in Patients with Idiopathic Scoliosis. Scientific journal of Ilam University of medical sciences. 2017; 25(3):90-99. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.29252/sjimu.25.3.90 5. Chung N, Cheng Y-H, Po H-L, et al. Spinal phantom comparability study of Cobb angle measurement of scoliosis using digital radiographic imaging. Journal of orthopaedic translation. 2018; 15:81-90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2018.09.005 6. Li Y, Kakar RS, Fu Y-C, et al. Postural control of individuals with spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Clinical Biomechanics. 2019; 61:46-51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.11.001 7. Luković V, Ćuković S, Milošević D, Devedžić G. An ontologybased module of the information system ScolioMedIS for 3D digital diagnosis of adolescent scoliosis. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. 2019/09/01/ 2019;178:247- 263. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.06.027 8. Salmingo RA, Tadano S, Fujisaki K, Abe Y, Ito M. Relationship of forces acting on implant rods and degree of scoliosis correction. Clinical biomechanics. 2013; 28(2):122-128. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2012.12.001 9. Wang W, Baran GR, Betz RR, Samdani AF, Pahys JM, Cahill PJ. The use of finite element models to assist understanding and treatment for scoliosis: a review paper. Spine Deformity. 2014; 2(1):10-27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.09.007 10. Cho SK, Caridi J, Kim JS, Cheung ZB, Gandhi A, Inzana J. Attenuation of Proximal Junctional Kyphosis Using Sublaminar Polyester Tension Bands: A Biomechanical Study. World neurosurgery. 2018; 120:e1136-e1142. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.08.244 11. Le Navéaux F, Aubin C-E, Parent S, Newton PO, Labelle H. 3D rod shape changes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis instrumentation: how much does it impact correction? European Spine Journal. 2017; 26(6):1676-1683. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-4958-1 12. Lavelle WF, Moldavsky M, Cai Y, Ordway NR, Bucklen BS. An initial biomechanical investigation of fusionless anterior tether constructs for controlled scoliosis correction. The Spine Journal. 2016; 16(3):408-413. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.11.004 13. Fairhurst H, Little JP, Adam CJ. Intra-operative measurement of applied forces during anterior scoliosis correction. Clinical Biomechanics. 2016; 40:68-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.10.014 14. Reutlinger C, Hasler C, Scheffler K, Büchler P. Intraoperative determination of the load–displacement behavior of scoliotic spinal motion segments: preliminary clinical results. European spine journal. 2012; 21(6):860-867. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2164-8 15. Roth AK, Beheshtiha AS, van der Meer R, et al. Validation of a finite element model of the thoracolumbar spine to study instrumentation level variations in early onset scoliosis correction. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2021/05/01/ 2021; 117:104360. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104360 16. Clin J, Le Navéaux F, Driscoll M, et al. Biomechanical Comparison of the Load-Sharing Capacity of High and Low Implant Density Constructs With Three Types of Pedicle Screws for the Instrumentation of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Spine deformity. 2019; 7(1):2-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2018.06.007 17. Wang X, Boyer L, Le Naveaux F, Schwend RM, Aubin C-E. How does differential rod contouring contribute to 3-dimensional correction and affect the bone-screw forces in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis instrumentation? Clinical Biomechanics. 2016; 39:115-121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.10.002 18. Jalalian A, Tay FE, Arastehfar S, Liu G. A patient-specific multibody kinematic model for representation of the scoliotic spine movement in frontal plane of the human body. Multibody system dynamics. 2017; 39(3):197-220. doi: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11044-016- 9556-1 19. Petit Y, Aubin C-É, Labelle H. Patient-specific mechanical properties of a flexible multi-body model of the scoliotic spine. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing. 2004; 42(1):55-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02351011 20 Koutras C, Pérez J, Kardash K, Otaduy MA. A study of the sensitivity of biomechanical models of the spine for scoliosis brace design. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. 2021/08/01/ 2021; 207:106125. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106125. 21. Jaremko JL, Poncet P, Ronsky J, et al. Comparison of Cobb angles measured manually, calculated from 3-D spinal reconstruction, and estimated from torso asymmetry. Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering. 2002; 5(4):277-281. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10255840290032649 22. Zhang J, Lou E, Le LH, Hill DL, Raso JV, Wang Y. Automatic Cobb measurement of scoliosis based on fuzzy Hough transform with vertebral shape prior. Journal of digital imaging. 2009; 22(5):463. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-008-9127-y 23. Rak M, Steffen J, Meyer A, Hansen C, Tönnies KD. Combining convolutional neural networks and star convex cuts for fast whole spine vertebra segmentation in MRI. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. 2019/08/01/ 2019; 177:47-56. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.05.003 24. Jaremko JL, Poncet P, Ronsky J, et al. Genetic Algorithm– Neural Network Estimation of Cobb Angle from Torso Asymmetry in Scoliosis. Journal of biomechanical engineering. 2002; 124(5):496-503. doi: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1503375 25. Kokabu T, Kanai S, Kawakami N, et al. An algorithm for using deep learning convolutional neural networks with three dimensional depth sensor imaging in scoliosis detection. The Spine Journal. 2021; 21(6):980-987. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.01.022 26. Phan P, Mezghani N, Wai EK, de Guise J, Labelle H. Artificial neural networks assessing adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison with Lenke classification. The Spine Journal. 2013; 13(11):1527-1533. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.449 27. Tokala DP, Nelson IW, Mehta JS, Powell R, Grannum S, Hutchinson MJ. Prediction of scoliosis curve correction using pedicle screw constructs in AIS: A comparison of fulcrum bend radiographs and traction radiographs under general anesthesia. Global Spine Journal. 2018; 8(7):676-682. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568218763147 28. Hu B, Wang L, Song Y, Yang X, Liu L, Zhou C. Postoperative proximal junctional kyphosis correlated with thoracic inlet angle in Lenke 5c adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients following posterior surgery. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2022; 23(1):1-11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022- 05868-8 29. Garg B, Mehta N, Bansal T, Malhotra R. EOS® imaging: Concept and current applications in spinal disorders. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma. 2020/09/01/ 2020; 11(5):786-793. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2020.06.012 30. Lechner R, Putzer D, Dammerer D, Liebensteiner M, Bach C, Thaler M. Comparison of two-and three-dimensional measurement of the Cobb angle in scoliosis. International Orthopaedics. 2017; 41(5):957-962. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3359-0 31. Skov ST, Li H, Hansen ES, et al. New growth rod concept provides three dimensional correction, spinal growth, and preserved pulmonary function in early-onset scoliosis. International Orthopaedics. 2020; 44(9):1773-1783. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04604-y 32 Ghandhari H, Mahabadi MA, Nikouei F, et al. The role of spinopelvic parameters in clinical outcomes of spinal osteotomies in patients with sagittal imbalance. Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2018; 6(4):324. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.22038/abjs.2017.26676.1705. | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 791 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 400 |