Purpose The present study compared manual and automated measurement of Cobb angle in idiopathic scoliosis based on deep learning keypoint detection technology. Methods A total of 181 anterior–posterior spinal X-rays were included in this study, including 165 cases of idiopathic scoliosis and 16 normal adult cases without scoliosis. We labeled all images and randomly chose 145 as the training set and 36 as the test set. Two state-of-the-art deep learning object detection models based on convolutional neural networks were used in sequence to segment each vertebra and locate the vertebral corners. Cobb angles measured from the output of the models were compared to manual measurements performed by orthopedic experts. Results The mean Cobb angle in test cases was 27.4° ± 19.2° (range 0.00–91.00°) with manual measurements and 26.4° ± 18.9° (range 0.00–88.00°) with automated measurements. The automated method needed 4.45 s on average to measure each radiograph. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for the reliability of the automated measurement of the Cobb angle was 0.994. The Pearson correlation coefficient and mean absolute error between automated positioning and expert annotation were 0.990 and 2.2° ± 2.0°, respectively. The analytical result for the Spearman rank-order correlation was 0.984 (p < 0.001). Conclusion The automated measurement results agreed with the experts’ annotation and had a high degree of reliability when the Cobb angle did not exceed 90° and could locate multiple curves in the same scoliosis case simultaneously in a short period of time. Our results need to be verified in more cases in the future.

No abstract

Background: To obtain a better understanding of the wearing habits and preferences of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) patients undergoing rigid brace treatment, we examine what factors contribute to patients’ perceived discomfort during the treatment. Methods: Seventeen AIS patients treated with a rigid brace were recruited. We asked them to complete a questionnaire and participate in an interview study. Finally, we measure the interface corrective force and perceived discomfort with the participants for different positions and assess the correlation. Results: Our survey reveals that participants scored the lowest in the domains of environmental factors, psycho-spiritual factors, satisfaction, and self-image. Appearance anxiety, physical and psychological discomfort and inconvenience were the three most frequently mentioned problems in the interviews on participants’ daily bracing experiences. A significant, moderately positive relationship between corrective force and discomfort level was found only when participants were lying on their left side, but not in any of the other positions. No significant correlation between treatment length and perceived discomfort was found. Conclusions: Future work should focus on reducing the psychological burden and the inconvenience of wearing a brace, rather than on reducing physical discomfort resulting from the corrective force.