Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı Cobb açıları, Jackson stres çizgileri ve Harrison tanjant metotlarının direkt yan servikal grafide servikal lordoz ölçümlerinin karşılaştırılması ve normal değerlerin elde toplanmasıdır. Materyal-Metot: Çalışmada 60-18 yaş arası yan servikal grafileri çekilmiş 76 hasta retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Grafilerde herhangi bir patolojiye rastlanan hastalar çalışma dışında bırakıldı. Servikal grafiler ayakta, yan ve nötr pozisyonda çekildi. Cobb, Jackson ve Harrison metotları uygulanarak servikal lordoz açıları pacs sisteminden ölçüldü. Sonuçlar: Hastaların 47' si kadın (%61.8), ve 29' u erkek (38.2%) idi. Ortalama yaş 43.83±15.9 olarak bulundu. C0-2, C2-7, Jackson stres çizgileri ve Harrison tanjant ölçümleri ortalama değerleri 30,72°±7,76°, 18,37°±9,44°, 18,92°±10,98° ve 22,91°±8,96° olarak hesaplandı. Cobb C0-C2 (p=0.307), Jackson (p=0.106) ve Harrison (p=0.688) ölçümlerinde kadın ve erkekler arasında anlamlı fark bulunamadı. Fakat Cobb C2-7 değeri kadın ve erkekler arasında (p=0.017) anlamlı bulundu ve erkeklerde daha yüksek idi. Değerler karşılaştırıldığında en yüksek Cobb C0-2 bulundu(Cobb C0- 2 >Harrison>Cobb C2-7~Jackson) (p
Aim: The purpose of this study is therefore to compare Cobb angles, Jackson stress lines and Harrison tangents methods to measure the cervical lordosis angle using lateral cervical X-ray graphics and collect nominative values. Materials-Method: We evaluated 76 patients' lateral cervical X-ray graphics between the ages of 18 to 60 years retrospectively. Exclusion criteria was any pathology that seen on graphics. Cervical X-ray graphics were taken as standing lateral neutral positioned. Cervical lordosis measured with Cobb, Jackson and Harrison techniques on pacs system. Results: 47 patients (61.8 %) were female, and 29 patients (38.2 %) were males. Mean age was 43.83 ± 15.9 years. We found mean values of C0-2, C2-7, Jackson stress lines and Harrison tangents as 30,72° ± 7,76°, 18,37° ± 9,44°, 18,92° ± 10,98° and 22,91° ± 8,96°. Cobb C0-C2 (p=0.307), Jackson (p=0.106), and Harrison (p=0.688) measurements were similar between males and females. But Cobb C2-7 was significantly different between genders (p=0.017), and males had significantly higher Cobb C2-7 values. The comparisons of methods revealed that Cobb C0-2 had highest values, and Cobb C2-7 and Jackson was lower than Harrison (Cobb C0-2>Harrison>Cobb C2-7~Jackson) (p<0.001). Conclusion: Harrison tangent technique is difficult to measure but we thought its results are better to show the best values because tangents also could measure the internal curve. All these techniques must be understood well with the biomechanics features so that surgeons could choose which technique would be better to use for the management of deformities.
1. An HS, Vaccaro A, Cotler JM, Lin S. Spinal disorders at the cervicothoracic junction. Spine 1994; 19: 2557- 2564.
2. Beier G, Schuck M, Schuller E, Spann W (Eds.). Determination of Physical Data of the Head I. Center of Gravity and Moments of Inertia of Human Heads. Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Munich, Munich 1979; pp: 44.
3. Cobb JR. Outlines for the Study of Scoliosis. In: Edwards JW (Ed.). Instructional Course Lecture. Vol 5. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Ann Arbor 1948; pp: 261-275.
4. Deviren V, Scheer JK, Ames CP. Technique of cervicothoracic junction pedicle subtraction osteotomy for cervical sagittal imbalance: report of 11 cases. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 15: 174-181.
5. Gay RE. The curve of the cervical spine: variations and significance. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1993; 16: 591- 594.
6. Gore DR. Roentgenographic findings in the cervical spine in asymptomatic persons: a ten-year follow-up. Spine 2001; 26: 2463-2466.
7. Gore DR, Sepic SB, Gardner GM. Roentgenographic findings of the cervical spine in asymptomatic people. Spine 1986; 11: 521-524.
8. Hardacker JW, Shuford RF, Capicotto PN, Pryor PW. Radiographic standing cervical segmental alignment in adult volunteers without neck symptoms. Spine 1997; 22: 1472-1480.
9. Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Troyanovich SJ, Janik TJ, Holland B. Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method: which to choose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine 2000; 25: 2072-2078.
10. Jackson RP, McManus AC. Radiographic analysis of sagittal plane alignment and balance in standing volunteers and patients with low back pain matched for age, sex, and size. A prospective controlled clinical study. Spine 1994; 19: 1611-1618.
11. Jackson R. The Cervical Syndrome, ed 2. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield 1958.
12. Lee SH, Kim KT, Seo EM, Suk KS, Kwack YH, Son ES. The influence of thoracic inlet alignment on the craniocervical sagittal balance in asymptomatic adults. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012; 25: E41-E47.
13. Louis R. Spinal stability as defined by the three-column spine concept. Anat Clin 1985; 7: 33-42.
14. Scheer JK, Tang JA, Smith JS, Acosta FL Jr, Protopsaltis TS, Blondel B, Bess S, Shaffrey CI, Deviren V, Lafage V, Schwab F, Ames CP; International Spine Study Group. Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 19(2): 141-159.
15. Sevastikoglou JA, Bergquist E. Evaluation of the reliability of radiological methods for registration of scoliosis. Acta Orthop Scand 1969; 40: 608-613.
16. Wang VY, Chou D. The cervicothoracic junction. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2007; 18: 365-371.
17. Yoshida G, Kamiya M, Yoshihara H, Kanemura T, Kato F, Yukawa Y. Subaxial sagittal alignment and adjacentsegment degeneration after atlantoaxial fixation performed using C-1 lateral mass and C-2 pedicle screws or transarticular screws. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 13: 443-450
18. Yoshimoto H, Ito M, Abumi K, Kotani Y, Shono Y, Takada T. A retrospective radiographic analysis of subaxial sagittal alignment after posterior C1-C2 fusion. Spine 2004; 29: 175-181.