Reliability of photogrammetry for evaluating pelvic posture in healthy individuals

doi:10.12307/2024.678

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, the anterior superior iliac spine and posterior superior iliac spine are usually located by palpation, and the tilt of the pelvis is determined by visual observation method or photogrammetry. Among them, the visual observation method can only have qualitative conclusions, and its reliability is poor. The photogrammetry is not only more convenient and fast, but also can give more accurate quantitative data, which is one of the best clinical evaluation methods. However, there are no studies on the reliability of pelvic posture assessment using photogrammetry in China.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pelvic posture by visual observation method and photogrammetry, and to compare the reliability level of the two methods to guide clinical application.
METHODS: Forty-five healthy subjects were selected and red marks were made at the bilateral anterior superior iliac spine and posterior superior iliac spine. Pelvic posture was photographed from the front, back (coronal plane), left, and right (sagittal plane). The left and right pelvic tilt angles (α, β angles) were selected from the front and back views, which represented the angle between the bilateral anterior superior iliac spine line or the bilateral posterior superior iliac spine line and the horizontal line. The anterior and posterior pelvic tilt angles (γ, θ angles) were selected from the side view, which represented the angle between the ipsilateral anterior superior iliac spine and posterior superior iliac spine line and the horizontal plane, indicating the sagittal plane pelvic tilt. Evaluation methods included visual observation method and photogrammetry. Two evaluators independently evaluated the pelvic α, β, γ, θ angles using the visual observation method first, and then recorded the pelvic α, β, γ, θ angles using the photogrammetry. After a one-month interval, the visual observation method and photogrammetry were performed again, and the pelvic α, β, γ, θ angles were recorded. The intraclass correlation coefficients were used to analyze the data obtained from the two evaluation methods and the before-and-after measurements: 0.90-0.99 as an excellent correlation, 0.80-0.89 as a good correlation, 0.70-0.79 as a moderate correlation, and ≤0.69 as a poor correlation. The standard error of measurement and the minimal detectable change with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to evaluate the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) The interrater intraclass correlation coefficients of the visual observation method and photogrammetry were as follows: anterior view: 0.682 and 0.718, posterior view: 0.513 and 0.867, left view: 0.739 and 0.960, and right view: 0.756 and 0.971. The visual observation method showed poor correlation between the anterior and posterior views and moderate correlation between the left and right views, while the photogrammetry showed moderate correlation for the anterior view, good correlation for the posterior view, and excellent correlation for the left and right views. The standard error values of measurement were as follows: anterior view: 3.266 and 1.625, posterior view: 4.278 and 1.763, left view: 5.935 and 1.787, and right view: 5.723 and 1.698. The minimal detectable change values with 95% confidence intervals were as follows: anterior view: 9.053 and 4.504, posterior view: 11.858 and 4.887, left view: 16.451 and 4.953, and right view: 15.863 and 4.707. (2) The interrater intraclass correlation coefficients of the visual observation method and photogrammetry were as follows: anterior view: 0.452 and 0.723, posterior view: 0.483 and 0.904, left view: 0.518 and 0.955, and right view: 0.657 and 0.968. The visual observation method showed poor correlation in all four directions, while the photogrammetry showed moderate correlation for the anterior view and excellent correlation for the other three directions. The standard error values of measurement were as follows: anterior view: 5.651 and 1.610, posterior view: 4.237 and 1.523, left view: 7.322 and 1.891, and right view: 6.509 and 1.781. The minimal detectable change values with 95% confidence intervals were as follows: anterior view: 15.664 and 4.463, posterior view: 11.744 and 4.222, left view: 20.296 and 5.242, and right view: 18.042 and 4.937. (3) These results confirm that the sagittal and coronal plane photogrammetries have good intrarater and interrater reliability for evaluating pelvic posture, especially with the use of the photogrammetry, which has good data stability. This method is simple, fast, efficient, accurate, low-cost, and does not cause X-ray damage, and can qualitatively and quantitatively reflect the actual situation of the patient’s pelvis, making it suitable for clinical use.

Key words: photogrammetry, visual observation method, pelvic posture, posture assessment, reliability

CLC Number:

Dong Miaomiao, Li Xiang, Xie Jiani, Zhang Lixin, Wang Yuexi. Reliability of photogrammetry for evaluating pelvic posture in healthy individuals[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2024, 28(36): 5846-5851.

Figures/Tables 3

References

[1] 欧阳钧,钱蕾,孙培栋.脊柱生物力学研究的回顾与展望[J].医用生物力学,2021,36(2):169-176.
[2] HAMMOND KE, KNEER L, CICINELLI P. Rehabilitation of Soft Tissue Injuries of the Hip and Pelvis. Clin Sports Med. 2021;40(2):409-428.
[3] SMITH JA, STABBERT H, BAGWELL JJ, et al. Do people with low back pain walk differently? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sport Health Sci. 2022;11(4):450-465.
[4] LEVANGIE PK. The association between static pelvic asymmetry and low back pain. Spine. 1999;(12):1234-1242.
[5] FANN AV. The prevalence of postural asymmetry in people with and without chronic low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;(12):1736-1738.
[6] WUNDERLICH M, RÜTHER T, ESSFELD D, et al. A new approach to assess movements and isometric postures of spine and trunk at the workplace. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(8):1393-402.
[7] BRINK Y, LOUW Q, GRIMMER-SOMERS K. The quality of evidence of psychometric properties of three-dimensional spinal posture-measuring instruments. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:93.
[8] HAZAR Z, KARABICAK GO, TIFTIKCI U. Reliability of photographic posture analysis of adolescents. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(10):3123-3126.
[9] HAGINS M, BROWN M, COOK C. Intratester and intertester reliability of the palpation meter (PALM) in measuring pelvic position. J Manual Manip Ther. 1998;(6):130-136.
[10] AZEVEDO DC, SANTOS H, CARNEIRO RL, et al. Reliability of sagittal pelvic position assessments in standing, sitting and during hip flexion using palpation meter. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2014;18(2):210-214.
[11] RUIVO RM, PEZARAT-CORREIA P, CARITA AI. Intrarater and interrater reliability of photographic measurement of upper-body standing posture of adolescents. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2015;38(1):74-80.
[12] ASHNAGAR Z, HADIAN MR, OLYAEI G, et al. Reliability of digital photography for assessing lower extremity alignment in individuals with flatfeet and normal feet types. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2017;21(3):704-710.
[13] NORKIN CC, WHITE DJ. Measurement of Joint Motion: A Guide to Goniometry. 2nd Edition, F.A. Davis Co., Philadelphia, 2015.
[14] JOHNSON J . Postural assessment. Human Kinetics. 2012:140.
[15] 谷梦云. 矫正小学生骨盆倾斜运动干预方案的研制与应用[D].北京:北京体育大学,2019.
[16] SPANOS S, KANELLOPOULOS A, PETROPOULAKOS K, et al. Reliability and applicability of a low-cost, camera-based gait evaluation method for clinical use. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2023;20(1):63-70.
[17] 宋维君,毛鑫玉,陈超,等.My Jump 2应用程序测量大学生下肢垂直刚度的信度和效度[J].中国组织工程研究,2024,28(2):172-176.
[18] MARQUES CJ, MARTIN T, FIEDLER F, et al. Intra- and Inter-rater Reliability of Navigated Ultrasound in the Assessment of Pelvic Tilt in Symptom-Free Young Adults. J Ultrasound Med. 2018;37(10):2333-2342.
[19] 姚远,徐丽丽,叶济灵,等.健康人矢状面照片拍摄法评定头颈姿势的信度研究[J].中国康复医学杂志,2021,36(2):172-176.
[20] KIM BB, LEE JH, JEONG HJ, et al. Effects of suboccipital release with craniocervical flexion exercise on craniocervical alignment and extrinsic cervical muscle activity in subjects with forward head posture. Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2016;30:31-37.
[21] ATKINSON G, NEVILL AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med. 1998;26(4):217-238.
[22] FURLAN L, STERR A. The Applicability of Standard Error of Measurement and Minimal Detectable Change to Motor Learning Research-A Behavioral Study. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018;12:95.
[23] DONTJE ML, DALL PM, SKELTON DA, et al. Reliability, minimal detectable change and responsiveness to change: Indicators to select the best method to measure sedentary behaviour in older adults in different study designs. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0195424.
[24] UEMURA K, TAKAO M, OTAKE Y, et al. Reproducibility of pelvic sagittal inclination while acquiring radiographs in supine and standing postures. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019;27(1):2309499019828515.
[25] KARABAG H, IPLIKCIOGLU AC, DUSAK A, et al. Pelvic incidence measurement with supine magnetic resonance imaging: A validity and reliability study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2022;222:107424.
[26] KIM SB, HEO YM, HWANG CM, et al. Reliability of the EOS Imaging System for Assessment of the Spinal and Pelvic Alignment in the Sagittal Plane. Clin Orthop Surg. 2018;10(4):500-507.
[27] 张彦新.三维步态分析技术的现状与发展[J].康复学报,2017,27(3):1-4.
[28] YU Q, HUANG H, ZHANG Z, et al. The association between pelvic asymmetry and non-specific chronic low back pain as assessed by the global postural system. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):596.
[29] 郑倩,黄晓琳,王莉,等.静态直立姿势定量评定的可靠性研究[J].中国康复医学杂志,2019,34(10):1178-1182.
[30] 郭永亮,冯重睿,张新斐. BTS三维运动捕捉系统在步态分析中的信度[J].中国组织工程研究,2018,22(23):3665-3669.