Dissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Masters in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, 2010. / Aim: To determine a radiographic and clinical profile of adult subjects with scoliosis and to determine an association between selected radiographic and clinical parameters. Subjects: Sixty subjects between 18 and 45 years, with or without neck/back pain, previously diagnosed with scoliosis. Methodology: A case history and a physical examination of the subject which included an orthopedic assessment of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spinal areas were conducted for all subjects. Selected clinical data viz. a case history, family history, level and location of pain if present, presence of leg length inequality, pelvic obliquity, shoulder height inequality and/or rib hump was recorded. A full spine A-P radiograph was taken for each subject in the weight-bearing position. Selected radiographic parameters viz. location of curve/s, side of convexity, degree of pedicle rotation, level of the apex vertebra and the Cobb angle of inclination were assessed and recorded. SPSS version 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) was used for data analysis. Results: The mean (± SD) age of the subjects was 26.8 (± 7.9) years. The majority of the subjects were females (63.3 %). A family history of scoliosis was reported by 14 subjects. Most of the subjects (73.3%) complained of pain of moderate severity at the time of presentation. The thoracic and lumbar regions were common areas of complaint in symptomatic subjects and they were most likely to experience pain at the level of the apex vertebra. Shoulder height inequality was observed in 96.7% of subjects, LLI in 91.7% of subjects, rib hump in 73.3% of subjects and pelvic obliquity in 86.7% of subjects. The majority of scoliotic curves were of idiopathic origin (96.7%). Thirty subjects presented with more than one curve. The mean (± SD) Cobb angle for the major curve was 21.3º (± 13.1º) while the mean (± SD) Cobb measurement for the minor curve was 16.7º (± 5.4º). The range for the major and minor curve was 11.5º - 97.0º and 10º- 37º respectively. Both the major and minor curve had the majority of curves located in the thoracic region. However, the apex vertebra was most likely to be found in the T7/T8 region for the major curve and L1/2 region for the minor curve. Pedicle rotation was Grade 1, Grade 0 or Grade 2 (in that order) for the major curves and Grade 0, Grade1 and Grade 2 for the minor iv curves. There was no significant association between the gender of the patient and the severity of pain (p = 0.725), severity of the major curve (p = 0.545) or grade of pedicle rotation (p = 0.639). There was also no significant association between the ethnicity of the subjects and severity of the major curve (p = 0.088) or degree of pedicle rotation (p = 0.882). No significant association was found between location of the major curve and presence of pain (p = 0.565) or between the side of the curve and pain (p = 0.812). There was no correlation between the degree of pain and the degree of curve (r = 0.102). No significant association was found between LLI and degree of curvature (p = 0.470). A significant association between LLI and reported pain was found (p = 0.034). A significant association was observed between the presence of a rib hump and the degree of curvature (p = 0.049). A positive correlation was found between rib hump elevation and degree of curvature (r = 0.814). A positive correlation between rib hump elevation and degree of pedicle rotation was found (rho = 0.308). Conclusion: Idiopathic scoliosis is the most common form of scoliosis in young adults. Pain is a common clinical feature in adult scoliosis. The size of the curve does not influence the magnitude of the LLI, pelvic obliquity or shoulder height inequality, however since these clinical features are common findings in the scoliotic individual, it is suggested that these parameters be routinely evaluated for their diagnostic significance. The presence of shoulder height inequality, LLI, rib hump and pelvic obliquity are deemed to be good clinical signs of scoliosis. Even though LLI was not associated with the magnitude of the curve, it may be a significant contributor to the back pain as LLI was found to be the only clinical parameter to have a significant association with pain. Therefore clinicians should explore the treatment of LLI to alleviate pain associated with scoliosis. The presence of a rib hump is a good clinical indication of the presence of a scoliosis.

Thesis (M.Tech.: Chiropractic)-Durban University of Technology, 2008 / To evaluate the lumbar lordosis, lumbosacral angle, lumbosacral disc angle, lumbosacral lordosis angle, intervertebral disc angles and heights, interpedicular distances, sagittal canal diameters and the lumbar gravity line (selected radiographic parameters) in young to middle aged Indian females in Durban. To determine any association between the selected radiographic parameters and the age of the subjects, weight, height and body mass index of the subjects, occupation, smoking, previous pregnancy and leg length inequality (selected anthropometric and demographic factors). Methods: Sixty healthy, asymptomatic, young to middle aged, Indian females were recruited for this study. All subjects underwent a case history, a physical examination and radiographic evaluation (AP and lateral views) of the lumbar spine. SPSS version 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill, USA) was used to analyze the data. Results: The mean (± SD) of the lumbar lordosis, lumbosacral angle, lumbosacral disc angle and lumbosacral lordosis angle was 49º (± 6º), 39º (± 8º), 12º (± 5º) and 143.2º (± 5º) respectively. For the lumbar intervertebral disc angles at L1-L2, L2-L3, L3-L4, L4-L5 and L5- S1 levels, the mean (± SD) was 6º (± 2º), 8º (± 2º), 10º (± 3º), 12º (± 4º) and 12º (± 5º) respectively. The anterior and posterior intervertebral disc heights at the respective vertebral levels were: L1-L2: anterior: 8 mm (± 2), posterior 5 mm (± 2); L2-L3: anterior: 10 mm (± 2), posterior 5 mm (± 2); L3-L4: anterior: 12 mm (± 2), posterior 5 mm (± 2); L4-L5: anterior: 14 mm (± 3), posterior 5 mm (± 2) and L5-S1: anterior: 13 mm (± 4), posterior 6 mm (± 2). The mean (± SD) of the interpedicular distance at the L1, L2, L3, L4 and L5 vertebral levels was 23 mm (± 2), 24 mm (± 2), 25 mm (± 2), 27 mm (± 2) and 31 mm (± 3) respectively. For the sagittal canal diameter at the L1, L2, L3, L4 and L5 vertebral levels, the mean (± SD) was 20 mm (± 5), 21 mm (± 3), 21 mm (± 3), 21 mm (± 3) and 19 mm (± 3) respectively. The lumbar gravity line intersected the sacrum in 67.3% of the subjects. In 29.1% of the subjects, the lumbar gravity line passed anterior to the sacrum while in 3.6% of the subjects, it passed posterior to the sacrum. iv A significant association was found between lumbar lordosis and the height of the subjects in this study (p = 0.004). A decrease in the intervertebral disc height at L5-S1 was associated with smoking (p = 0.005). A decrease in the intervertebral disc height at L4-L5 was associated with previous pregnancy (p = 0.016). Body mass index of 26–30 kg.m-2 was significantly associated with an increase in the intervertebral disc angles at L3-L4 (p = 0.028) and L4-L5 (p = 0.031). A decrease in the L5-S1 intervertebral disc angle was also significantly associated with smoking (p = 0.023). There was a significant association between previous pregnancy and an increase in the intervertebral disc angle at L3-L4 (p = 0.016). A significant association was found between the age of the subjects and the L5-S1 intervertebral disc angle (p = 0.007). Specifically it was the 23–27 year group and 33–37 year group who were significantly different from each other (p = 0.033). Conclusion: Similarities and differences were found in the mean values of the radiographic parameters measured in this study and those reported in the literature. A number of the selected anthropometric and demographic factors were associated with some of the lumbar radiographic parameters. Further studies are required to establish the clinical significance of these findings.

Submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Department of Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2016. / Background Literature has shown that clinical and radiological diagnoses do not always correlate in patients with neck pain (Ferrari and Russel, 2003; Peterson and Hsu, 2004). It is not known if this applies to the Chiropractic Day Clinic (CDC) at the Durban University of Technology (DUT) and if the radiological diagnosis leads to a change in the patient’s initial management plan. The impact of cervical spine plain film radiographs will therefore be investigated in the diagnosis and management of patients that presented with neck pain to the CDC at the DUT. It is also not known whether the reason for referral for cervical spine plain film radiographs is always indicated as per the indications in the clinic handbook and radiological referral guidelines. Objectives Objectives were: (1) To determine the suspected pre-radiographic clinical diagnosis and management of the selected clinical records prior to referral for cervical spine plain film radiography; (2) To record the reasoning to send for cervical spine plain film radiographic imaging and to establish whether these are in line with proposed guidelines for referral as found in the literature; (3) To determine the relationship between the suspected pre-radiographic clinical and the radiological diagnoses of patients with neck pain; (4) To determine the number of incidental findings in the selected patients’ plain film radiographs; (5) To determine any change in the pre-radiographic clinical diagnoses and management following radiological reporting of the selected patient’s plain film radiographs. Method This was a quantitative, retrospective, clinical study. The archives at the CDC at the DUT were searched for cervical spine plain film radiographs between 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2013 and these were matched with the corresponding clinical records. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 73 records were included in the study. The patient’s personal information was coded to ensure confidentiality (Appendix A) and specific clinical and radiological information was recorded (Appendix B). Statistical analysis included the use of frequency counts, percentages, mean, standard deviation and range for the descriptive objectives. Results A total of 73 clinical files and corresponding plain film radiographs were assessed. The mean age of the patients was 44 years. The gender distribution was 64.4% (n=47) females and 35.6% (n=26) males. The most frequent primary radiological diagnosis was loss of lordosis at 41.1% (n=30) followed by cervical spondylosis at 35.6% (n=26) and old cervical spinal trauma at 12.3% (n=9). Sixty four percent (n=47) of patients in this study were sent for cervical spine plain film radiographs after their initial clinical consultation. Reasons that are not considered relevant indications for plain film radiographic referral were present in 46.2% (n=34) of cases; these described non-specific mechanical disorders. The most common reason for plain film radiographic referral was due to positive orthopaedic tests 57.5% (n=42). A total of 27.4% (n=20) of clinical files reviewed had a change in their initial clinical diagnosis and 72.6% (n=53) of these patients had no change in diagnosis. All of the post-radiographic clinical diagnoses were non-specific mechanical conditions. Numerous treatment modalities were utilized by the students with the most common pre-radiographic treatment being soft tissue therapy at 63.0% (n=46). A total of 75% (n=55) of patients had a change of treatment after plain film radiographs were performed and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) was the main treatment added in 41% of cases. Conclusion Cervical spine plain film radiographs have little impact on the diagnosis of patients with non-specific mechanical neck pain without red flags. It was however found that plain film radiographs had an impact on the management in the majority of cases, especially with an increase in SMT use after plain film radiographs. / M

Thesis (M.Tech.: Chiropractic)-Durban University of Technology, 2008 / To evaluate the lumbar lordosis, lumbosacral angle, lumbosacral disc angle, lumbosacral lordosis angle, intervertebral disc angles and heights, interpedicular distances, sagittal canal diameters and the lumbar gravity line (selected radiographic parameters) in young to middle aged Indian females in Durban. To determine any association between the selected radiographic parameters and the age of the subjects, weight, height and body mass index of the subjects, occupation, smoking, previous pregnancy and leg length inequality (selected anthropometric and demographic factors). Methods: Sixty healthy, asymptomatic, young to middle aged, Indian females were recruited for this study. All subjects underwent a case history, a physical examination and radiographic evaluation (AP and lateral views) of the lumbar spine. SPSS version 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill, USA) was used to analyze the data. Results: The mean (± SD) of the lumbar lordosis, lumbosacral angle, lumbosacral disc angle and lumbosacral lordosis angle was 49º (± 6º), 39º (± 8º), 12º (± 5º) and 143.2º (± 5º) respectively. For the lumbar intervertebral disc angles at L1-L2, L2-L3, L3-L4, L4-L5 and L5- S1 levels, the mean (± SD) was 6º (± 2º), 8º (± 2º), 10º (± 3º), 12º (± 4º) and 12º (± 5º) respectively. The anterior and posterior intervertebral disc heights at the respective vertebral levels were: L1-L2: anterior: 8 mm (± 2), posterior 5 mm (± 2); L2-L3: anterior: 10 mm (± 2), posterior 5 mm (± 2); L3-L4: anterior: 12 mm (± 2), posterior 5 mm (± 2); L4-L5: anterior: 14 mm (± 3), posterior 5 mm (± 2) and L5-S1: anterior: 13 mm (± 4), posterior 6 mm (± 2). The mean (± SD) of the interpedicular distance at the L1, L2, L3, L4 and L5 vertebral levels was 23 mm (± 2), 24 mm (± 2), 25 mm (± 2), 27 mm (± 2) and 31 mm (± 3) respectively. For the sagittal canal diameter at the L1, L2, L3, L4 and L5 vertebral levels, the mean (± SD) was 20 mm (± 5), 21 mm (± 3), 21 mm (± 3), 21 mm (± 3) and 19 mm (± 3) respectively. The lumbar gravity line intersected the sacrum in 67.3% of the subjects. In 29.1% of the subjects, the lumbar gravity line passed anterior to the sacrum while in 3.6% of the subjects, it passed posterior to the sacrum. iv A significant association was found between lumbar lordosis and the height of the subjects in this study (p = 0.004). A decrease in the intervertebral disc height at L5-S1 was associated with smoking (p = 0.005). A decrease in the intervertebral disc height at L4-L5 was associated with previous pregnancy (p = 0.016). Body mass index of 26–30 kg.m-2 was significantly associated with an increase in the intervertebral disc angles at L3-L4 (p = 0.028) and L4-L5 (p = 0.031). A decrease in the L5-S1 intervertebral disc angle was also significantly associated with smoking (p = 0.023). There was a significant association between previous pregnancy and an increase in the intervertebral disc angle at L3-L4 (p = 0.016). A significant association was found between the age of the subjects and the L5-S1 intervertebral disc angle (p = 0.007). Specifically it was the 23–27 year group and 33–37 year group who were significantly different from each other (p = 0.033). Conclusion: Similarities and differences were found in the mean values of the radiographic parameters measured in this study and those reported in the literature. A number of the selected anthropometric and demographic factors were associated with some of the lumbar radiographic parameters. Further studies are required to establish the clinical significance of these findings.

Submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, 2017. / Radiographs are the most commonly used modalities for the purpose of diagnosing skeletal disorders. Radiographs are important for chiropractors to exclude any contra-indications prior to spinal manipulative therapy. If contra-indications are found treatment is modified to what best suits each patient. There is a gap in the literature regarding chiropractors reading the same set of radiographs and agreeing on findings. Objectives The study investigated inter- and intra-examiner reliability of lumbar spine radiograph analysis by chiropractors and its impact on clinical management. Methods Inter- and intra-examiner examination of radiographs occurred in two rounds separated by two weeks. Six chiropractors read the same 30 radiographs and clinical history was only available in the second round. Results Inter-observer agreement for categorisation for Round One was 96.78% and Round Two 89.49%. Inter-observer agreement in management was 96.45% in round one and 96.00% in Round two. Agreement between chiropractors had no statistically significant difference. Identification average improved from 0.09 to 0.89 kappa. Overall specificity was relatively high and sensitivity was relatively low. Conclusion Reliability/Agreement between chiropractors was strong in both rounds. Categorising of the diagnosis improved from poor to substantial from Round One to Round Two. Case history improved the accuracy of interpreting the radiographs although this change was not statistically significant. / M