Abstract
Background: Quantifying thoracic kyphosis is essential in musculoskeletal and rehabilitation practice. Although radiographic Cobb angle is commonly treated as a reference standard, repeated imaging is limited by cost and radiation exposure. Therefore, clinicians frequently use non-radiographic tools such as inclinometers and flexicurve rulers, which have shown acceptable reliability and variable levels of validity in different populations. The objective of this study was examine Pearson correlations between a patented K-Kyphometer (Utility Patent No. 23366) and two flexicurve-derived measures—Kyphosis Index (KI) and Kyphosis Angle (K angle).
Methods: In this cross-sectional correlation study (N=28), thoracic kyphosis was assessed using the K-Kyphometer and the flexicurve ruler. From the flexicurve tracing, KI and Kangle were computed using standard geometric derivations from the same tracing. The Pearson correlations (two-tailed) between measures obtained from the K-Kyphometer with KI and KAngle were analyzed using statistical significance value (alpha) of 0.05.
Results: K-Kyphometer showed negligible correlations with KI (r=0.045, p=0.818) and Kangle (r=0.043, p=0.826). In contrast, KI and Kangle demonstrated a perfect/near-perfect linear relationship (r=1.000, p< 0.001), consistent with both indices being derived from the same flexicurve geometry.
Conclusion: K-Kyphometer measurements were not linearly associated with flexicurve-derived kyphosis metrics. KI and Kangle were essentially mathematically linked as flexicurve-based descriptors of thoracic curvature. However, clinical interchangeability with reference standards (e.g., radiographic Cobb or inclinometer methods) should be established using agreement analyses and external validity testing.
Keyword: Thoracic kyphosis, Kyphosis Index, Kyphosis Angle, K-Kyphometer
Recommended Citation
Taweekarn P, Vannajak K.
Exploratory Concurrent Associations between K-Kyphometer and Flexicurve-Derived Kyphosis Measures (Kyphosis Index and Kyphosis Angle): preliminary study.
J Health Res.
2026;
40(1):-.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56808/2586-940X.1223
References
[1] Yanagawa TL, Maitland ME, Burgess K, Young L, Hanley D. Assessment of thoracic kyphosis using the flexicurve for individuals with osteoporosis. Hong Kong Physiother J 2000;18(2):53—7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1013-7025(00)18004-2.
[2] Barrett E, Lenehan B, O'Sullivan K, Lewis J, McCreesh K. Validation of the manual inclinometer and flexicurve for the measurement of thoracic kyphosis. Physiother Theory Pract 2018;34(4):301—8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2017.1394411.
[3] Hunter DJ, Rivett DA, McKiernan S, Weerasekara I, Snodgrass SJ. Is the inclinometer a valid measure of thoracic kyphosis? Braz J Phys Ther 2018;22(4):310—7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2018.02.005.
[4] van Blommestein AS, MaCrae S, Lewis JS, Morrissey MC. Reliability of measuring thoracic kyphosis angle, lumbar lordosis angle and straight leg raise with an inclinometer. Open Spine J 2012;4:10—5. https://doi.org/10.2174/1876532701204010010.
[5] Barrett E, McCreesh K, Lewis J. Intrarater and interrater reliability of the flexicurve index, flexicurve angle, and manual inclinometer for the measurement of thoracic kyphosis. Biomed Res Int 2013;2013:475870. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/475870.
[6] Greendale GA, Nili NS, Huang MH, Seeger L, Karlamangla AS. The reliability and validity of three nonradiological measures of thoracic kyphosis and their relations to the standing radiological Cobb angle. Osteoporos Int 2011;22(6):1897—905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1422-z.
[7] Grindle DM, Mousavi SJ, Allaire BT, White AP, Anderson DE. Validity of flexicurve and motion capture for measurements of thoracic kyphosis vs standing radiographic measurements. JOR Spine 2020;3(3):e1120. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1120.
[8] Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8(2):135—60. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029900800204.
[9] Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1(8476):307—10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8.
