INTRODUCTION. Standing spinal alignment has been the center of focus recently, particularly in the setting of adult spinal deformity. Humans spend approximately half of their waking life in a seated position. While lumbopelvic sagittal alignment has been shown to adapt from standing to sitting posture, segmental vertebral alignment of the entire spine is not yet fully understood, nor are the effects of DEGEN or DEFORMITY. Segmental spinal alignment between sitting and standing, and the effects of degeneration and deformity were analyzed. METHODS. Segmental spinal alignment and lumbopelvic alignment (pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), lumbar lordosis (LL), PI-LL, sacral slope) were analyzed. Lumbar spines were classified as NORMAL, DEGEN (at least one level of disc height loss >50%, facet arthropathy, or spondylolisthesis), or DEFORMITY (PI-LL mismatch>10°). Exclusion criteria included lumbar fusion/ankylosis, hip arthroplasty, and transitional lumbosacral anatomy. Independent samples t-tests analyzed lumbopelvic and segmental alignment between sitting and standing within groups. ANOVA assessed these differences between spine pathology groups. RESULTS. There were 183 NORMAL, 216 DEGEN and 92 DEFORMITY patients with significant differences in age, gender, and hip OA grades. After propensity matching for these factors, there were 56 patients in each group (age 63±14, 58% female) [Fig. 1]. Significant differences were noted between spinal pathology groups with regard to changes from standing to sitting alignment with regard to NORMAL vs DEGEN vs DEFORMITY groups in PT (13.93° vs −11.98° vs − 7.95°; p=0.024), LL (21.91° vs 17.45° vs 13.23°; p=0.002), PI-LL (−22.32° vs −17.28° vs −13.18°; p<0.001), SVA (−48.99° vs −29.98° vs −32.12°; p=0.002), and TPA(−16.35° vs −12.69° vs −9.64; p=0.001). TK (−2.08° vs −2.78° vs −2.00°, p=0.943) and CL (−3.84° vs −4.14° vs −3.57°, p=0.621) were not significantly different across spinal pathology groups [Fig. 2]. NORMAL patients had overall greater mobility in the lower lumbar spine from standing to sitting compared to DEGEN and DEFORMITY patients. L4-L5 (7.50° vs 5.23° vs 4.74°, p=0.012) and L5-S1 (6.96° vs 5.28° and 3.69°, p=0.027). There were no significant differences in change in alignment from standing to sitting at the upper lumbar levels or lower thoracic levels between the three groups [Fig. 3]. CONCLUSION. The lower lumbar spine provides the greatest sitting to standing change in lumbopelvic alignment in normal patients. Degeneration and deformity of the spine significantly reduces the mobility of the lower lumbar spine and PT. With lumbar spine degeneration and flatback deformity, relatively more alignment change occurs at the upper lumbar spine and thoracolumbar junction

To determine if the use of high density implants (i.e. high proportion of pedicle screws relative to number of spinal levels involved) causes significant loss of thoracic kyphosis and its effect on sagittal balance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Retrospective analysis of pre and post-operative radiographs to assess sagittal balance and C7-L1 kyphosis angle.

17 patients (16 females, 1 male). All right sided single thoracic curves. All surgery performed by single surgeon (Senior author, ED)

Comparison of pre and post operative sagittal balance and C7-L1 kyphosis angle. Assessment of implant density (i.e. proportion of pedicle screw relative to number of spinal levels involved in correction).

9 patients demonstrated improved sagittal balance following surgery. There was no significant difference (p value 0.83) between the pre and post op C7-L1 kyphosis angle. Mean angle pre op 28.9 (95% CI 20.3 to 37.5). Mean angle post op 29.6 (95% CI 22.2 to 37.0). No correlation identified between sagittal balance correction and kyphosis angle. Metal density ranged from 79-100%.

Although the sample size in this series is modest, high density implants do not significantly affect the kyphosis angle in the operative management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the thoracic spine.

In 2021, Vigdorchik et al. published a large multicentre study validating their simple Hip-Spine Classification for determining patient-specific acetabular component positioning in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of our study was to apply this Hip-Spine Classification to a sample of Australian patients undergoing THA surgery to determine the local acetabular component positioning requirements. Additionally, we propose a modified algorithm for adjusting cup anteversion requirements. 790 patients who underwent THA surgery between January 2021 and June 2022 were assessed for anterior pelvic plane tilt (APPt) and sacral slope (SS) in standing and relaxed seated positions and categorized according to their spinal stiffness and flatback deformity. Spinal stiffness was measured using pelvic mobility (PM); the ΔSS between standing and relaxed seated. Flatback deformity was defined by APPt <-13° in standing. As in Vigdorchik et al., PM of <10° was considered a stiff spine. For our algorithm, PM of <20° indicated the need for increased cup anteversion. Using this approach, patient-specific cup anteversion is increased by 1° for every degree the patient's PM is <20°. According to the Vigdorchik simple Hip-Spine classification groups, we found: 73% Group 1A, 19% Group 1B, 5% Group 2A, and 3% Group 2B. Therefore, under this classification, 27% of Australian THA patients would have an elevated risk of dislocation due to spinal deformity and/or stiffness. Under our modified definition, 52% patients would require increased cup anteversion to address spinal stiffness. The Hip-Spine Classification is a simple algorithm that has been shown to indicate to surgeons when adjustments to acetabular cup anteversion are required to account for spinal stiffness or flatback deformity. We investigated this algorithm in an Australian population of patients undergoing THA and propose a modified approach: increasing cup anteversion by 1° for every degree the patient's PM is <20°

Introduction. Patients with reduced lumbar spine mobility are at higher risk of dislocation after THA as their hips have to compensate for spinal stiffness. Therefore our study aimed to 1) Define the optimal protocol for identifying patients with mobile hips and stiff lumbar spines and 2) Determine clinical and standing radiographic parameters predicting high hip and reduced lumbar spine mobility. Methods. This prospective diagnostic cohort study followed 113 consecutive patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis (OA) awaiting THA. Radiographic measurements were performed for the lumbar lordosis angle, pelvic tilt and pelvic-femoral angle on lateral radiographs in the standing, ‘relaxed-seated’ and ‘deep-seated’ (i.e. torso maximally leaning forward) position. A “hip user index” was calculated in order to quantify the contribution of the hip joint to the overall sagittal movement performed by the femur, pelvis and lumbar spine. Results. Radiographs in the relaxed-seated position had an accuracy of 56% (95%CI:46–65%) to detect patients with stiff lumbar spines, compared to a detected rate of 100% in the deep-seated position. The mean ‘hip user index’ was 63±12% and ten patients (9%) were hip users, having an index of 80% or more. A standing pelvic tilt of ≥18.5° was the only predictor for being a hip user with a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 71% (AUC 0.83). Patients with a standing pelvic tilt ≥18.5° and an unbalanced spine with a flatback deformity had a 30xfold relative risk (95%-CI:4–226; p<0.001) of being a hip user. Conclusion. Patients awaiting THA and having high hip and reduced lumbar spine mobility can be screened for with lateral standing radiographs of the spinopelvic complex and a thorough clinical examination. If the initial screening is positive, radiographs in the deep-seated position allow for better identification of patients being ‘hip users’ compared to radiographs in the relaxed-seated position

Objective. To determine if there is a differing effect between two spinal implant systems on sagittal balance and thoracic kyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Methods. Retrospective analysis of pre and post-operative radiographs to assess sagittal balance, C7-L1 kyphosis angles and metal implant density. Group 1 (Top loading system): 11 patients (9 females, 2 males) Single surgeon NB. Group 2 (Side loading system): 17 patients (16 females, 1 male) Single surgeon ED. Total 28 patients. All single right sided thoracic curves. Comparison of pre and postoperative sagittal balance and C7-L1 kyphosis angle for each spinal system. Assessment of implant density (i.e. proportion of pedicle screw relative to number of spinal levels involved in correction). Results. 16 patients demonstrated improved sagittal balance following surgery. There was no significant difference between the pre and post op C7-L1 kyphosis angle in either group (p value 0.06 and 0.83 respectively) although a greater discrepancy was noted in Group 1. In group 1, the mean angle pre op was 33.1 (95% CI 27.3 to 38.9) and post op was 26.2 (95% CI 22.5 to 29.9). In Group 2, the mean angle pre op was 28.9 (95% CI 20.3 to 37.5) and post op was 29.6 (95% CI 22.2 to 37.0). No correlation identified between sagittal balance correction and kyphosis angle. Metal density ranged from 60-100%. Conclusions. Although the numbers in this series are modest they do suggest that high density metal implants do not lead to a flatback deformity in the sagittal plane. There is no significant difference in the pre and post op kyphosis angles for either implant system used in this study although the results for Group 1 do approach statistical significance. Larger prospective multicentre studies are required to quantify the true significance of these results. Ethics Approval: Audit/Service Standard in Trust

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of a patient-specific algorithm which we developed for predicting changes in sagittal pelvic tilt after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

Pelvic tilt (PT) can significantly change the functional orientation of the acetabular component and may differ markedly between patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients with stiff spines who have little change in PT are considered at high risk for instability following THA. Femoral component position also contributes to the limits of impingement-free range of motion (ROM), but has been less studied. Little is known about the impact of combined anteversion on risk of impingement with changing pelvic position.