Layout 1 Thematic Section: Advances in Musculoskeletal and Neuromuscular Rehabilitation Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13422, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13422 Idiopathic Scoliosis (IS) represents a structural 3D deformity of the spine and thoracic cage in healthy children of any age with multifactorial, yet unclarified etiology.1 During the rapid growth spurts, the scoliotic curve can progress, perpetuating a "vicious cycle”.2 The severity of the curve is measured using the Cobb method.3,4 According to the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS), a Cobb angle greater than 10° with rotational aspects on a spine radiograph is required to diagnose IS. Currently, the Cobb angle remains the most reliable criterion for defining and monitoring patients with IS and is directly correlated with all treatment decisions.5 Due to the described measurement error in the Cobb angle, a change of more than 5° is considered a progression of the scoliotic curve.6 Among the different types of IS, Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) is the most common and has the highest risk of progression.7,8 Early detection and prevention of scoliosis progression during growth is a primary goal of conservative treat- ment, using 3D correction principles.5 Full spine radiog- raphy in PA or AP projection remains the gold standard for diagnosing and monitoring of IS.5 However, repeated exposure to ionizing radiation poses a significant risk. Studies indicate that these patients undergo an average of Abstract This retrospective study, utilising prospectively collected data, investigates the use of spine ultrasound as an alternative method for assessing scoliosis, with the aim of reducing radiation exposure. We included 92 patients aged 10 to 16 years with suspected idiopathic scoliosis. Exclusion criteria were weight over 150 kg, metal implants, pre-existing conditions, secondary deformities, and cognitive impairments. Each patient underwent clinical assessment and full spine radiographs, followed by spine ultrasound using the Scolioscan® system. Unprocessed B-mode ultrasound images were analysed using automatic measurements. The correlation between Ultrasound Coronal Angle (UCA) and Radiographic Cobb Angle (RCA) was evaluated at initial and follow-up visits. Strong correlations were found between UCA and RCA, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.786 to 0.903 (p<0.001). The regression formula showed good predictive accuracy for curve progression on follow-up radiographs. The best results were observed in females and in primary thoracic curves (r = 0.936, p<0.001). Although only four patients exhibited true progression (≥5° increase in Cobb angle), changes in scoliotic angles were effectively detected using ultrasound. This study confirms the feasibility of unprocessed spine ultrasound for scoliosis monitoring in clinical settings. Automatic measurements without 3D reconstruction make ultrasound a practical tool for tracking progression. The regression model shows potential for predicting curve progression, although further validation is needed. These findings suggest spine ultrasound could reduce the need for radiographs, benefiting patients by minimising radiation exposure while providing reliable monitoring of scoliosis progression and treatment outcomes. Key Words: scoliosis; adolescent; ultrasound; spine. Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13422, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13422 Ultrasound vs. x-ray: a new way for clinicians to track scoliosis progression? Samra Pjanić,1 Goran Talić,1 Nikola Jevtić,2 Filip Golić,1 Ivan Soldatović,3 Nachiappan Chockalingam4,5 1Institute for Physical Medicine, Rehabilitation and Orthopedic Surgery “Dr Miroslav Zotovic”, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina;; 2Scolio Centar, Novi Sad, Serbia; 3Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Beograd, Serbia; 4Centre for Biomechanics and Rehabilaition Technologies, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom; 5Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Malta, Msida, Malta. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (CC BY-NC 4.0) which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. - 82 - Tracking scoliosis progression Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13422, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13422 16 radiographic exams, increasing the risk of certain cancers, particularly breast cancer in women, by fivefold.9,10,11 To reduce radiation exposure, the EOS® imaging system was developed, offering significantly lower radiation levels with comparable image quality to conventional radiographs.12,13 However, its high-cost limits accessibility, prompting the need for more afford- able alternatives. The ultimate goal is to replace spine ra- diography as the primary tool for diagnosing and monitoring scoliosis. A recent report14 highlights the postural-motor challenges and caregiving burden associated with scoliosis in in- dividuals with Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS). By iden- tifying delays in postural-motor milestones and significant differences in lumbar extension, it emphasizes the necessity for tailored interventions. Additionally, the findings stress the increased caregiving demands linked to scoliosis, demonstrating the importance of ongoing monitoring to ensure timely interventions and support for both individuals with PWS and their caregivers. Another previous systematic review15 highlights the neurophysio- logical, balance, and motion abnormalities linked to AIS. It emphasises the critical need for standardized testing to improve treatment approaches and advance understand- ing of the complex aetiology of AIS. In recent years, non-invasive methods like spine ultra- sound and surface topography have gained attention as po- tential alternatives.16,17,18 These methods are radiation-free, making them safe for unlimited use. Although ultrasound measurements show smaller angles compared to radiog- raphy due to differences in anatomical landmarks used, studies have demonstrated a strong correlation between the two.19 The Scolioscan® device allows for simple, fast, and pain-free spine ultrasound scanning, with studies demonstrating its potential for diagnosing and monitoring IS.20-23 Recent studies confirmed its reliability and validity and suggest ultrasound could replace radiography in mon- itoring scoliosis progression and treatment effects.24-26 The new portable Scolioscan® Air has also shown comparable accuracy to the standard device, expanding its usability.25 In previous research,19-26 ultrasound image analysis re- quired 3D reconstruction in the Scoliostudio® software for precise visualization of anatomical landmarks. Manual measurements were used for greater accuracy, with no sig- nificant differences in reliability between using Spinous (SP) and Transverse Processes (TP) for coronal ultrasound angle assessment.17 Despite its benefits and supporting re- search, spine ultrasound is not widely used in clinical practice due to the time-consuming nature of 3D software reconstruction and limited staff availability. To integrate ultrasound as a viable alternative to radiography in routine practice, B-mode imaging (without any post-processing) and automatic measurements were compared to spine ra- diography. Although B-mode only visualises the coronal angle, it offers a quick and efficient way to assess spinal deformities, which is crucial since most treatment deci- sions are based on frontal plane measurements.5 This study aimed to determine whether basic ultrasound can re- liably track AIS progression, potentially reducing the need for repeated radiographic exposure. Matarials and Methods Study design and setting This retrospective study was conducted at the Institute for Physical Medicine, Rehabilitation and Orthopedic Surgery “Dr Miroslav Zotovic”, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzego- vina, from July 2021 to August 2023, with Ethics Commit- tee approval (No. 21-01-7947-2/24). Participants The study included 92 patients (aged 10-16, both genders) referred as suspected IS, with no prior treatment. Clinical assessment and Scoliometer readings indicated the need for full spine radiography. Patients with a Cobb angle ≥10° were diagnosed with AIS,27 while those with <10° were classified as having no scoliosis/bad posture. Treatment var- ied from PSSE alone to PSSE combined with bracing, fol- lowing SOSORT guidelines.5 Braced AIS patients were advised to wear the brace full-time (18-23 hours/day) based on curve severity and progression risk. Follow-up radio- graphs were performed for patients with clinical worsening or six months after brace adaptation. For radiographs, brace wear time was adjusted to avoid the “concertina effect”.28 Patients with pre-existing conditions, secondary deformi- ties, or cognitive impairments were excluded. Data collection The US examination was performed using the Scolioscan® system (model SCN801) manufactured by Telefield Medi- cal Imaging Ltd, Hong Kong.22 It includes hardware that enables the scanning process and software (Scoliostudio®) for additional adjustments and 3D reconstruction of the spine. Contraindications for Scolioscan® are weight over 150 kg and the presence of metal and magnet implantants (i.e., pacemaker, defibrillator, cochlear implant). Five trained technicians with similar experience con- ducted standardized scans. B-mode ultrasound images with clear visualisation of TP’s were used without 3D re- construction or software adjustments. The same technician couldn’t scan the same patient during the initial and fol- low-up visits, due to organisational challenges of the out- patient department which encompasses several outpatient clinics. The technicians performing the scans had com- pleted specialized training for the use of the ultrasound system. The positioning of the patients and the scanning process were standardised. The scanning process is fast and easy for the patient, who needs to maintain a stable posture during 45 seconds to 1 minute of scanning. The device is adjustable to the height and width of the patient. After scanning, the ultrasound im- ages (B-mode) were utilized without additional adjustments or use of the 3D reconstruction and analysis software inte- grated into the Scolioscan® system (Scoliostudio®). Auto- matic measurements, generated by the system, were employed on the ultrasound images, representing the fastest and most efficient method for measurement. These auto- matic measurements displayed the tilt angle of each verte- bra from the T1 to the L5 level relative to the horizontal plane. Two raters (physicians) selected the end vertebrae of the primary curve, identifying the most tilted vertebrae - 83 - Tracking scoliosis progression Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13422, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13422 without prior review of the X-ray image for the same pa- tient, to avoid subjectivity and measurement bias. Follow- ing the selection of end vertebrae and using the transverse processes as measurement reference points, the ultrasound angle (Scolio-angle) of the primary curve was expressed in degrees, calculated as the sum of the angles of the end ver- tebrae. This way, the ultrasound (Scolio) angle didn’t nec- essarily display the same end vertebrae as the radiological (Cobb) angle. Two physicians independently selected the most tilted end vertebrae of the primary curve, avoiding prior X-ray review to prevent bias, following which the US Coronal Angle (UCA) was calculated automatically. Data extraction The patient data were extracted from the Institute’s health information system. Demographic and anthropometric data covered gender, age, Body Weight (BW), Body Height (BH), and Body Mass Index (BMI) in kg/m² and percent- iles. AP full spine standing radiographs and US scans were performed on the same day within one hour. Primary sco- liotic curve was the focus of the measurement. A standard- ised protocol was followed using the GE PROTEUS XR with the "Care Stream Classic CR" imaging system. Digital measurements were made using the "TraumCad®" software. Radiological parameters included the Cobb angle, primary curve location and Vertebral Rotation (VR) at the curve apex, using Raimondi method. Statistical analysis Results were presented as frequencies (percentages) or means ± standard deviations. Pearson’s correlation analysis was used to assess the relationship’s direction and strength. Linear correlation between RCA and UCA was evaluated, and the difference between them (US measurement error) was calculated. This difference was then analysed against other variables. Variables significantly correlated with the measurement error were included in a regression model to predict the RCA on follow-up X-rays. A p-value<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 29.0 (IBM Corp, 2022). Results The study included 92 patients (41% boys and 59% girls) with primary curves ranging from 3° to 45° Cobb angle. Of these, 83 were diagnosed with AIS and 9 with bad posture. After initial clinical and radiological evaluation, 37 patients received bracing. For those with bad posture or mild AIS follow-up radiographs were conducted after an average (Median) of 12.1 months (Interquartile Range: 5 months). Table 1 displays the distribution of patients based on an- thropometric characteristics, radiological, and ultrasound findings. A statistically significant linear correlation between RCA and UCA measurements was observed in all patients, with correlation coefficients (r) ranging from 0.786 to 0.903. The correlation between RCA and UCA, according to the tech- nician who performed US diagnostics, is shown in Table 2. - 84 - Table 1. Basic characteristics of the examined sample. Total (n=92) Male (n=38) Female (n=54) p value Age 12.9±1.6 13.0±1.6 12.8±1.7 0.571a Height 163.4±10.8 167.5±12.0 160.5±8.8 0.004a Weight 49.7±9.0 51.9±9.3 48.1±8.5 0.043a BMI 18.5±2.1 18.4±2.0 18.5±2.3 0.784a BMI (percentil) 44.2±25.9 42.7±28.0 45.2±24.5 0.655a Thoracic curve (%) 48 (52.2) 22 (57.9) 26 (48.1) 0.478b Lumbar curve (%) 44 (47.8) 16 (42.1) 28 (51.9) RCA1 19.2±9.9 15.9±8.6 21.5±10.1 0.007a UCA1 15.8±8.2 12.7±6.1 17.9±8.9 0.003a RCA2 16.0±7.9 13.7±6.9 17.6±8.2 0.018a UCA2 13.9±6.1 11.2±4.5 15.8±6.4 0.000a VR1 10.2±8.8 9.3±7.6 10.7±9.6 0.455a VR2 9.2±7.9 10.1±7.3 8.6±8.3 0.380a at test; bChi-Square. Tracking scoliosis progression Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13422, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13422 Furthermore, the correlation between RCA and UCA at the initial and follow-up assessment was presented in total sam- ple, as well as in groups according to gender and location of the primary curve, which is shown in Table 3. The best correlation can be observed in females with pri- mary thoracic curves, as well as males with primary lumbar curves. The error in US measurement of the spinal curvature angle was calculated as the difference between UCA and RCA. The correlation matrix of the ultrasound measurement error and sociodemographic and anthropometric parame- ters as well as the location of the curvature is presented in Table 4. No statistically significant linear correlation of the US - 85 - Table 2. Correlation between RCA and UCA by technicians r (p) Unstand. B (CI 95%) Technician 1 (n=64) 0.786 (<0.001) 0.916 (0.733-1.100) Technician 2 (n=75) 0.823 (<0.001) 1.100 (0.923-1.277) Technician 3 (n=10) 0.903 (<0.001) 1.696 (1.036-2.356) Technician 4 (n=25) 0.863 (<0.001) 0.912 (0.682-1.143) Technician 5 (n=10) 0.853 (<0.001) 1.318 (0.661-1.975) Table 3. Correlation between RCA and UCA Total Male Female Thoracic Lumbar Thoracic Thoracic Lumbar Lumbar male female male female Initial 0.825 0.776 0.827 0.869 0.705 0.711 0.898 0.933 0.553 Follow-up 0.796 0.650 0.841 0.879 0.605 0.632 0.936 0.720 0.518 All p values are <0.001. Table 4. Correlation matrix of difference between UCA-RCA (follow-up) – US error. Total Male Female Thoracic Lumbar Age 0.059 (0.575) 0.126 (0.451) 0.001 (0.995) 0.073 (0.622) 0.055 (0.722) Gender -0.074 (0.571) - - 0.035 (0.814) -0.198 (0.197) T or L 0.101 (0.336) 0.237 (0.152) 0.006 (0.963) - - Weight -0.044 (0.678) -0.066 (0.695) -0.057 (0.683) 0.086 (0.560) -0.171 (0.268) Height 0.008 (0.940) 0.015 (0.928) -0.051 (0.712) -0.021 (0.885) 0.058 (0.710) BMI -0.098 (0.352) -0.166 (0.319) -0.048 (0.732) 0.181 (0.218) -0.317 (0.036) BMI percentile -0.083 (0.430) -0.200 (0.229) 0.032(0.819) 0.124 (0.402) -0.257 (0.092) VR 0.260 (0.012) 0.334 (0.040) 0.231 (0.092) 0.326 (0.024) 0.204 (0.183) Results are presented as correlation coefficient and p value in bracket. Tracking scoliosis progression Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13422, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13422 measurement error was observed according to age, gender, curvature location, weight and height. BMI (kg/m²) has shown a significant correlation in the group with primary lumbar curves and VR measured on the apex of the primary curve on the initial spine radiograph. In groups divided by gender and primary curve location, a significant correlation between US error and VR was ob- served among males and primary thoracic curves, while in females significance is close to conventional level of sig- nificance. In the group of primary lumbar curves, no sig- nificant correlation between US error and VR is observed. In order to predict the RCA value of the spinal curvature on the follow-up spine radiograph, statistically significant pre- dictors in the regression model included VR on the initial spine radiograph and the UCA value measured on the fol- low-up ultrasound (Table 5). According to the model incorporating these two independ- ent variables, the regression equation for predicting the cur- vature magnitude on the follow-up spine radiograph is: Predicted RCA = 1.391+0.933xUCA+0.160xVR. The pre- dictive power of this model in clinical settings is acceptable; based on the R2 value, this model explains 66% of the var- iability of the curvature in the follow-up spine radiograph. To test the agreement between the two measurement methods, RCA and UCA measurements, the Bland-Altman method was used (Figure 1). The range of agreement is de- fined as the mean difference between the UCA and RCA measurements ± 2 Standard Deviations (SD). The measure- ment agreement is satisfactory under outpatient clinical conditions, with an average difference of 1.00° according to Cobb’s method. The predictive RCA value (pRCA) calculated using the re- gression formula significantly correlates with the RCA value measured on the spine radiograph. The average change in RCA for 1° is accompanied by an average change in pRCA for 1°, with smallest deviations in individual measurements observed in girls and in thoracic curves (see Figure 2). Minimal deviation in individual measurements of RCA compared to pRCA was observed in girls with tho- racic curves (see Figure 3). Discussion Our study was conducted in a clinical setting without ad- ditional staff or technical adjustments, making it more prac- tical for daily use compared to other studies. Unlike previous studies that required 3D-reconstructed ultrasound images for analysis,19-26 ours is the first to assess unpro- cessed (B-mode) ultrasound images and compare them to radiographs for detecting curve progression. Similar to other studies, we found that UCA measurements were generally lower than RCA, due to the use of different anatomical landmarks in ultrasound19 compared to radiog- raphy.29 This difference occurs because ultrasound cannot penetrate bones, making posterior spinal structures like ver- tebral bodies and intervertebral discs invisible.30 Despite these variations, the difference between UCA and RCA was clinically insignificant (<5°), consistent with previous find- ings19,24,31 and within the typical measurement error range for the Cobb angle.32 Studies with a wider Cobb angle range showed more pronounced differences between UCA and RCA.19,31 While no significant differences in reliability and validity were observed between various US measurement methods, the TP angle showed the closest alignment with the Cobb angle.19 We found only one study33 utilising auto- matic TP measurements, similar to our approach. Our study showed a strong correlation between UCA and RCA measurements, with best correlation in thoracic - 86 - Table 5. Regression models. Beta (95% CI) Model n R2 adj. SE Intercept US VR Mean diff Total 92 0.652 4.652 1.391 0.933 (0.761 – 1.105)** 0.160 (0.040 – 0.280)* 2.080 (1.091-3.070) Male 38 0.464 5.042 1.575 0.873 (0.484 – 1.261)** 0.252 (0.021 – 0.482)* 2.497 (0.777-4.218) Female 54 0.709 4.421 0.589 1.003 (0.791 – 1.215)** 0.107 (-0.305 – 0.249) 1.787 (0.570-3.004) L 44 0.383 5.073 4.238 0.740 (0.389 – 1.092)** 0.145 (-0.021 – 0.310) 2.584 (1.005-4.164) Th 48 0.779 4.217 -0.411 1.026 (0.810 – 1.241)** 0.173 (-0.023 – 0.370) 1.619 (0.351-2.887) L Male 16 0.583 4.826 2.706 0.699 (0.003 – 1.396)* 0.362 (-0.015 – 0.740) 3.931 (1.156-6.706) L Female 28 0.222 5.175 5.165 0.710 (0.190 – 1.230)** 0.061 (-0.138 – 0.260) 1.814 (-0.172-3.800) Th Male 22 0.347 5.342 0.659 1.000 (0.409 – 1.591)** 0.104 (-0.299 – 0.507) 1.455 (-0.816-3.725) Th Female 26 0.887 3.283 -1.132 1.026 (0.785 – 1.266)** 0.215 (-0.002 – 0.432) 1.814 (0.257-3.258) * p<0.05, **p<0.01; SE reg. – Std. error of the Es. Tracking scoliosis progression Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13422, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13422 curves, consistent with previous research.19,23,24 This differ- ence may be due to the greater thickness of muscles and fat tissue in the lumbar area,30 which complicates ultrasound penetration. Additionally, TPs are positioned more poste- riorly in the lumbar region, making them less visible, espe- cially with VR.30 Using TPs as landmarks in both regions for automatic measurements may have also affected cor- relation. Previous studies have shown that relying solely on TPs in the lumbar area, without including superior articular processes, reduces the correlation between UCA and RCA.20,21 This is likely because the distance between ver- tebral landmarks and the skin surface varies at different ver- tebral levels.34,35 Analysis by gender showed a stronger correlation between UCA and RCA in females than in males, independent of curve severity, location, or vertebral rotation. This may be due to the relatively small curve size in our sample, up to 45° of Cobb angle. No gender-based differences have been reported in other studies, suggesting the need for further research. We could not assess factors like sagittal profile, leg length discrepancy, or adapted scan- ning positions, which might have influenced results.30 The best correlation was seen in girls with primary thoracic curves and boys with primary lumbar curves, though the latter finding is limited by a small sample size of 16 pa- tients. First-braced patients were included to evaluate US potential for monitoring brace treatment effectiveness, as they typically require more radiographs during treatment compared to non-braced patients.36,37 A previous study by our team38 showed lower correlation between UCA and RCA on unedited images with manually measured angles. This may be attributed to the less experi- enced technicians and doctors, which affected image quality and measurement precision. The spine ultrasound can also essential for monitoring progression, which has been pre- viously confirmed.39 In the present study, only four patients (as shown in Table 6) showed true progression (Cobb angle - 87 - Figure 1. Prediction in total. Table 6. Patients with progression. No. Age Gender T/L BMI RCA AVR RCA control UCA UCA control 1 11 Female Lumbar 18.2 13 2 26 13.7 10.2 2 11 Female Lumbar 16.4 11 0 21 11.9 12.8 3 12 Female Lumbar 19.9 10 20 20 10.3 11.3 4 11 Female Thoracic 18.7 15 6 21 11.1 12.2 Tracking scoliosis progression Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13422, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13422 worsening ≥5°). Therefore, we refer to “progression” as any detectable change in scoliotic angle between two US as- sessments compared to radiographs. Although we need a larger sample of progressive cases to substantiate the re- ported results, we have shown promising results using un- processed US images combined with automatic TP measurements and developed a regression formula to pre- dict the RCA on follow-up radiographs. The best prediction was observed in girls and in primary thoracic curves, with the smallest measurement deviations. Previous studies24,31 have presented similar formulas with comparable prediction accuracy. The only study to report automatic TP measure- ments33 showed higher correlation coefficients between UCA and RCA. However, their analysis was based on re- constructed US images. These findings highlight the potential of ultrasound as a vi- able alternative to spine radiography for screening, diagno- sis, and follow-up of patients with bad posture and AIS in clinical practice. Studies have shown that ultrasound can reduce the need for spine radiographs by up to 50% in school screenings.40 Unprocessed US images don’t capture scoliotic deformity in 3D. However, since treatment deci- sions still largely depend on Cobb angle measurements in the frontal plane,28 ultrasound as a practical tool could be - 88 - Figure 2. Scater of Predicted Ro vs. Real Ro by location and gender. Tracking scoliosis progression Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13422, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13422 used for monitoring progression in this dimension, while changes in other two dimensions could be tracked with combined clinical and surface topography assessment. Al- though spine radiography remains the gold standard for dia- gnosing of scoliosis, treatment decisions are based on a range of diagnostic tools.5 Thus, the frequency of radio- graphs and associated radiation exposure for monitoring of progression can be significantly reduced. However, ultra- sound has limitations for curves with apices above T6,41 as well as in obese and mentally challenged patients. Further prospective studies with larger patient samples and more controlled clinical settings are needed to validate and refine our proposed regression formula. Demonstrating that auto- matic measurements on unprocessed US images are suffi- ciently accurate to track progression in children with AIS will enhance the appeal of spine ultrasound for clinicians to utilize it in routine clinical practice. This could lead to a significant reduction in the number of spine radiographs, ultimately benefiting patients by minimising radiation ex- posure. The findings of this study contribute significantly to the ex- isting body of knowledge and clinical practice by demon- strating the practicality and reliability of unprocessed ultrasound images combined with automatic TP measure- - 89 - Figure 3. Scater of Predicted CA vs. Real CA by location x gender. Tracking scoliosis progression Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13422, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13422 ments for monitoring scoliosis progression. This approach addresses a critical gap in the literature by validating a less resource-intensive alternative to radiographs, particularly for detecting curve progression in clinical settings. Unlike previous studies that relied on 3D-reconstructed images, this study highlights the feasibility of using standard B- mode ultrasound, making it more accessible for routine use. The strong correlation between Ultrasound Curve Angle (UCA) and Radiographic Cobb Angle (RCA), especially in thoracic curves and female patients, supports its utility in specific patient populations. Moreover, the proposed regres- sion formula for predicting RCA offers a valuable tool for clinicians to monitor scoliosis progression with reduced re- liance on radiography, thereby minimizing radiation expo- sure. These advancements align with current clinical priorities to improve patient safety and streamline care, pav- ing the way for wider adoption of ultrasound in scoliosis management. This integration could significantly enhance diagnostic efficiency, reduce healthcare costs, and improve patient outcomes. Conclusions This retrospective study establishes ultrasound as a prac- tical and effective tool for routine monitoring of AIS in clinical settings. The use of automatic measurements on unprocessed images demonstrated consistent reliability, simplifying the evaluation process for clinicians. The re- gression formula introduced offers a promising method for predicting curve progression on follow-up radio- graphs, with further prospective validation needed to con- firm its applicability. These findings advocate for the integration of ultrasound into scoliosis care, enabling re- duced reliance on radiographic exams, lowering radiation exposure, and enhancing patient safety while maintaining accurate monitoring of disease progression and treatment outcomes. Confict of interest All authors declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have had an interest in the sub- mitted work in the previous three years, no other relation- ships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Author statement SP was responsible for the conception of the work, with all authors contributing to study design. IS and FG completed the data acquisition and analysis, with all authors involved in the interpretation of data. SP was responsible for the orig- inal drafting of the work with all authors revising it criti- cally for important intellectual content. All authors had final approval of the version to be published. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. SP is the manuscript’s guarantor. Ethics approval Ethics approval number 21-01-7947/24 granted by Insti- tute for Physical Medicine, Rehabilitation and Orthopedic Surgery “Dr Miroslav Zotovic”, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Date: 05.07.2024. Details of funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Patient and public involvement statement No patients/public were involved in the design, implemen- tation or analysis of results of this work. Availability of data and materials All data ara available in the present article. Corresponding author Nachiappan Chockalingam, Centre for Biomechanics and Rehabilaition Technolgies, Staffordshire University, Leek Road, Stoke-on-Trent,ST4 2DF, United Kingdom. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-7072-1271 E-mail: n.chockalingam@staffs.ac.uk Co authors Samra Pjanić ORCID ID: 0009-0009-8868-2299 E-mail: samra.pjanic@hotmail.com Goran Talić ORCID ID: 0009-0005-9578-0242 E-mail: kancelarija.direktora@ms.zotovicbl.org, Nikola Jevtić ORCID ID: 0000-0002-7065-8401 E-mail: njevticns@gmail.com Filip Golić ORCID ID: 0009-0005-2072-5070 E-mail: filipgolic@yahoo.com Ivan Soldatović ORCID ID: 0000-0003-4893-1683 E-mail: ivan.soldatovic@med.bg.ac.rs References 1. Fadzan M, Bettany-Saltikov J. Etiological theories of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: past and present. Open Or1. Fadzan M, Bettany-Saltikov J. Etiological theories of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: past and present. Open Orthop J 2017;11:1466-89. - 90 - https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7072-1271 https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8868-2299 https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9578-0242 mailto:kancelarija.direktora@ms.zotovicbl.org https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7065-8401 mailto:njevticns@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2072-5070 mailto:filipgolic@yahoo.com https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4893-1683 mailto:ivan.soldatovic@med.bg.ac.rs Tracking scoliosis progression Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13422, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13422 2. Stokes IAF, Burwell RG, Dangerfield PH. Biomechan- ical spinal growth modulation and progressive adoles- cent scoliosis – a test of the ‘vicious cycle’ pathogenetic hypothesis: Summary of an electronic focus group de- bate of the IBSE. Scoliosis 2006;1:16 3. Chockalingam N, Dangerfield PH, Giakas G, et al. Computer-assisted Cobb measurement of scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2002;1:353-7. 4. Jin C, Wang S, Yang G, et al. A review of the methods on Cobb angle measurements for spinal curvature. Sen- sors (Basel) 2022;22:3258. 5. Negrini S, Donzelli S, Aulisa AG, et al. 2016 SOSORT guidelines: orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth. Scoliosis Spinal Dis- orders 2018;13:3. 6. Carman DL, Browne RH, Birch JG. Measurement of scoliosis and kyphosis radiographs. Intraobserver and interobserver variation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72: 328–333. 7. Schlösser TP, van der Heijden GJ, Versteeg AL, Caste- lein RM. How ‘idiopathic’ is adolescent idiopathic sco- liosis? A systematic review on associated abnormalities. PLoS One 2014;9:e97461. 8. Konieczny MR, Senyurt H, Krauspe R. Epidemiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Child Orthop 2013;7:3-9. 9. Presciutti SM, Karukanda T, Lee M. Management deci- sions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis significantly af- fect patient radiation exposure. Spine J 2014;14: 1984-90. 10. Simony A, Hansen EJ, Christensen SB, et al. Incidence of cancer in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients treated 25 years previously. Eur Spine J 2016;25: 3366-70. 11. Hoffman DA, Lonstein JE, Morin MM, et al. Breast cancer in women with scoliosis exposed to multiple dia- gnostic Xrays. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;8117:1307–12. 12. Deschenes S, Charron G, Beaudoin G, et al. Diagnostic imaging of spinal deformities reducing patients radia- tion dose with a new slot-scanning X-ray imager. Spine 2010;35:989–94. 13. Al-Aubaidi Z, Lebel D, Oudjhane K, Zeller R. Three- dimensional imaging of the spine using the EOS sys- tem: is it reliable? A comparative study using computed tomography imaging. J Pediatric Orthopaedics B 2013;22:409–12. 14. Maccarone MC, Avenia M, Masiero S. Postural-motor development, spinal range of movement and caregiver burden in Prader-Willi syndrome-associated scoliosis: an observational study. Eur J Translat Myol 2024;34: 12533. 15. Paramento M, Passarotto E, Maccarone MC, et al. Neu- rophysiological, balance and motion evidence in adoles- cent idiopathic scoliosis: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2024;19:e0303086. 16. Navarro IJRL, Rosa BND, Candotti CT. Anatomical reference marks, evaluation parameters and reprodu- cibility of surface topography for evaluating the adoles- cent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Gait Posture 2019;69:112-20. 17. Bolzinger M, Bernardini I, Thevenin Lemoine C, et al. Monitoring adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by measur- ing ribs prominence using surface topography device. Spine Deform 2021;9:1349-54. 18. Mehta B, Chockalingam N, Shannon T, et al. Non-in- vasive assessment of back surface topography: technol- ogies, techniques and clinical utility. Sensors 2023;23: 8485. 19. Brink RC, Wijdicks SPJ, Tromp IN, et al. A reliability and validity study for different coronal angles using ul- trasound imaging in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine J 2018;18:979–98. 20. Cheung CWJ, Zhou GQ, Law SY, et al. Freehand three- dimensional ultrasound system for assessment of sco- liosis. J Orthopaedic Translat 2015;3:123–33. 21. Cheung CW, Zhou GQ, Law SY, et al. Ultrasound vol- ume projection imaging for assessment of scoliosis. IEEE Transaction on Medical Imaging 2015;8: 1760–8. 22. Young M, Hill DL, Zheng R, Lou E. Reliability and ac- curacy of ultrasound measurements with and without the aid of previous radiographs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Europe Spine J 2015;24:1427–33. 23. Wang Q, Li M, Lou EHM, Wong MS. Reliability and validity study of clinical ultrasound imaging on lateral curvature of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. PLoS One 2015;10:e0135264. 24. Zheng YP, Lee TT, Lai KK, et al. A reliability and va- lidity study for Scolioscan: a radiation-free scoliosis as- sessment system using 3D ultrasound imaging. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 2016;11:13. 25. Lai KK, Lee TT, Lee MK, et al. Validation of scolioscan air-portable radiation-free three-dimensional ultrasound imaging assessment system for scoliosis. Sensors (Basel) 2021;21:2858. 26. Lee TY, Yang D, Lai KK, et al. Three-dimensional ul- trasonography could be a potential non-ionizing tool to evaluate vertebral rotation of subjects with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. JOR Spine 2023;6:e1259. 27. Horng MH, Kuok CP, Fu MJ, et al. Cobb angle meas- urement of spine from x-ray images using convolutional neural network. Comput Math Methods Med 2019;2019:6357171. 28. Negrini S, Fusco C, Romano M, et al. Clinical and pos- tural behaviour of scoliosis during daily brace weaning hours. Stud Health Technol Inform 2008;140:303-6. 29. Vrtovec T, Pernus F, Likar B. A review of methods for quantitative evaluation of spinal curvature. Eur Spine J 2009;18:593–607. 30. Lee TT, Lai KK, Cheng JC, et al. 3D ultrasound imag- ing provides reliable angle measurement with validity comparable to X-ray in patients with adolescent idiopa- thic scoliosis. J Orthop Translat 2021;29:51-9. 31. De Reuver S, Brink RC, Lee TTY, et al. Cross-valida- tion of ultrasound imaging in adolescent idiopathic sco- liosis. Eur Spine J 2021;30:628-33. 32. Gstoettner M, Sekyra K, Walochnik N, Winter P, Wach- ter R, Bach CM. (2007) Inter- and intraobserver reli- ability assessment of the Cobb angle: manual versus digital measurement tools. Eur Spine J 16(10):1587–92. - 91 - Tracking scoliosis progression Eur J Transl Myol 35 (1) 13422, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13422 doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0401-3. Epub 2007 Jun 5. PMID: 17549526; PMCID: PMC2078306. 33. Banerjee S, Huang Z, Lyu J, et al. Automatic assessment of ultrasound curvature angle for scoliosis detection using 3-D ultrasound volume projection imaging. Ul- trasound Med Biol 2024;50:647-60. 34. Lee TTY, Jiang WW, Cheng CLK, et al. A novel method to measure the sagittal curvature in spinal deformities: the reliability and feasibility of 3-D ultrasound imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2019;45:2725–35. 35. Avramescu S, Arzola C, Tharmaratnam U, et al. Sonoa- natomy of the thoracic spine in adult volunteers. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2012;37:349–53. 36. Cool J, Streekstra GJ, van Schuppen J, et al. Estimated cumulative radiation exposure in patients treated for ad- olescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 2023;32: 1777-86. 37. Presciutti SM, Karukanda T, Lee M. Management deci- sions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis significantly af- fect patient radiation exposure. Spine J 2014;14: 1984-90. 38. Pjanic S, Talic G, Bojinovic Rodic D. Comparison be- tween radiographic and ultrasound angle measurements in the assessment of idiopathic scoliosis. Biomedicinska istrazivanja 2021;12:139-49. 39. Lai KK, Lee TT, Lau HH, et al. Monitoring of curve progression in patients with adolescent idiopathic sco- liosis using 3-D ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2024;50:384-93. 40. Pang H, Wong YS, Yip BH, et al. Using ultrasound to screen for scoliosis to reduce unnecessary radiographic radiation: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study on 442 schoolchildren. Ultrasound Med Biol 2021;47: 2598-607. 41. Wong YS, Lai KK, Zheng YP, et al. Is radiation-free ul- trasound accurate for quantitative assessment of spinal deformity in idiopathic scoliosis (IS): a detailed analysis with EOS radiography on 952 patients. Ultrasound Med Biol 2019;45:2866-77. Disclaimer All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their af- filiated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. Submitted: 24 November 2024. Accepted: 13 December 2024. Early access: 21 February 2025. - 92 -