Aims. This study aimed to evaluate sagittal spinopelvic alignment (SSPA) in the early stage of rapidly destructive coxopathy (RDC) compared with hip osteoarthritis (HOA), and to identify risk factors of SSPA for destruction of the femoral head within 12 months after the disease onset. Methods. This study enrolled 34 RDC patients with joint space narrowing > 2 mm within 12 months after the onset of hip pain and 25 HOA patients showing femoral head destruction. Sharp angle was measured for acetabular coverage evaluation. Femoral head collapse ratio was calculated for assessment of the extent of femoral head collapse by RDC. The following parameters of SSPA were evaluated using the whole spinopelvic radiograph: pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), thoracic kyphosis angle (TK), lumbar lordosis angle (LL), and PI-LL. Results. The HOA group showed higher Sharp angles compared with the RDC group. PT and PI-LL were higher in the RDC group than the HOA group. SS and LL were lower in the RDC group than the HOA group. No difference was found in PI, SVA, or TK between the groups. Femoral head collapse ratio was associated with PT, SS, SVA, LL, and PI-LL. A PI-LL > 20° and a PT > 30° correlated with greater extent of femoral head destruction by RDC. From regression analysis, SS and SVA were significantly associated with the femoral head collapse ratio within 12 months after disease onset. Conclusion. Compared with HOA, RDC in the early stage correlated with sagittal spinopelvic malalignment. SS and SVA may partially contribute to the extent of femoral head destruction by RDC within 12 months after the onset of hip pain. The present study indicates a potential role of SSPA assessment in identification of RDC patients at risk for subsequent bone destruction. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):77–84

Aims. Symptomatic spinal stenosis is a very common problem, and decompression surgery has been shown to be superior to nonoperative treatment in selected patient groups. However, performing an instrumented fusion in addition to decompression may avoid revision and improve outcomes. The aim of the SpInOuT feasibility study was to establish whether a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) that accounted for the spectrum of pathology contributing to spinal stenosis, including pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and mobile spondylolisthesis, could be conducted. Methods. As part of the SpInOuT-F study, a pilot randomized trial was carried out across five NHS hospitals. Patients were randomized to either spinal decompression alone or spinal decompression plus instrumented fusion. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at baseline and three months. The intended sample size was 60 patients. Results. Of the 90 patients screened, 77 passed the initial screening criteria. A total of 27 patients had a PI-LL mismatch and 23 had a dynamic spondylolisthesis. Following secondary inclusion and exclusion criteria, 31 patients were eligible for the study. Six patients were randomized and one underwent surgery during the study period. Given the low number of patients recruited and randomized, it was not possible to assess completion rates, quality of life, imaging, or health economic outcomes as intended. Conclusion. This study provides a unique insight into the prevalence of dynamic spondylolisthesis and PI-LL mismatch in patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis, and demonstrates that there is a need for a definitive RCT which stratifies for these groups in order to inform surgical decision-making. Nonetheless a definitive study would need further refinement in design and implementation in order to be feasible. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):573–579

The spinopelvic alignment is often assessed via the Pelvic Incidence-Lumbar Lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch. Here we describe and validate a simplified method to evaluating the spinopelvic alignment through the L1-Pelvis angle (L1P). This method is set to reduce the operator error and make the on-film measurement more practicable. 126 standing lateral radiographs of patients presenting for Total Hip Arthroplasty were examined. Three operators were recruited to label 6 landmarks. One operator repeated the landmark selection for intra-operator analysis. We compare PI-LL mismatch obtained via the conventional method, and our simplified method where we estimate this mismatch using PI-LL = L1P - 90°. We also assess the method's reliability and repeatability. We found no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the PI-LL mismatch from the conventional method (mean 0.22° ± 13.6) compared to L1P method (mean 0.0° ± 13.1). The overall average normalised root mean square error (NRMSE) for PI-LL mismatch across all operators is 7.53% (mean -3.3° ± 6.0) and 6.5% (mean -2.9° ± 4.9) for the conventional and L1P method, respectively. In relation to intra-operator repeatability, the correlation coefficients are 0.87 for PI, 0.94 for LL, and 0.96 for L1P. NRMSE between the two measurement sets are PI: 9.96%, LL: 5.97%, and L1P: 4.41%. A similar trend is observed in the absolute error between the two sets of measurements. Results indicate an equivalence in PI-LL measurement between the methods. Reproducibility of the measurements and reliability between operators were improved. Using the L1P angle, the classification of the sagittal spinal deformity found in the literature translates to: normal L1P<100°, mild 100°<L1P<110°, and severe L1P>110°. Surgeons adopting our method should expect a small improvement in reliability and repeatability of their measurements, and a significant improvement of the assessment of the mismatch through the visualisation of the angle L1P

Mechanical failure of spine posterior fixation in the lumbar region Is suspected to occur more frequently when the sagittal balance is not properly restored. While failures at the proximal extremity have been studied in the literature, the lumbar distal junctional pathology has received less attention. The aim of this work was to investigate if the spinopelvic parameters, which characterize the sagittal balance, could predict the mechanical failure of the posterior fixation in the distal lumbar region. All the spine surgeries performed in 2017-2019 at Rizzoli Institute were retrospectively analysed to extract all cases of lumbar distal junctional pathology. All the revision surgeries performed due to the pedicle screws pull-out, or the breakage of rods or screws, or the vertebral fracture, or the degenerative disc disease, in the distal extremity, were included in the junctional (JUNCT) group. A total of 83 cases were identified as JUNCT group. All the 241 fixation surgeries which to date have not failed were included in the control (CONTROL) group. Clinical data were extracted from both groups, and the main spinopelvic parameters were assessed from sagittal standing preoperative (pre-op) and postoperative (post-op) radiographs with the software Surgimap (Nemaris). In particular, pelvic incidence (PI), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic tilt (PT), T1 pelvic angle (TPA), sacral slope (SS) and lumbar lordosis (LL) have been measured. In JUNCT, the main failure cause was the screws pull-out (45%). Spine fixation with 7 or more levels were the most common in JUNCT (52%) in contrast to CONTROL (14%). In CONTROL, PT, TPA, SS and PI-LL were inside the recommended ranges of good sagittal balance. For these parameters, statistically significant differences were observed between pre-op and post-op (p<0.0001, p=0.01, p<0.0001, p=0.004, respectively, Wilcoxon test). In JUNCT, the spinopelvic parameters were out of the ranges of the good sagittal balance and the worsening of the balance was confirmed by the increase in PT, TPA, SVA, PI-LL and by the decrease of LL (p=0.002, p=0.003, p<0.0001, p=0.001, p=0.001, respectively, paired t-test) before the revision surgery. TPA (p=0.003, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) and SS (p=0.03, unpaired t-test) differed significantly in pre-op between JUNCT and CONTROL. In post-op, PI-LL was significantly different between JUNCT and CONTROL (p=0.04, unpaired t-test). The regression model of PT vs PI was significantly different between JUNCT and CONTROL in pre-op (p=0.01, Z-test). These results showed that failure is most common in long fused segments, likely due to long lever arms leading to implant failure. If the sagittal balance is not properly restored, after the surgery the balance is expected to worsen, eventually leading to failure: this effect was confirmed by the worsening of all the spinopelvic parameters before the revision surgery in JUNCT. Conversely, a good sagittal balance seems to avoid a revision surgery, as it is visible is CONTROL. The mismatch PI-LL after the fixation seems to confirm a good sagittal balance and predict a good correction. The linear regression of PT vs PI suggests that the spine deformity and pelvic conformation could be a predictor for the failure after a fixation

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). Methods. This retrospective study included 143 patients who underwent 171 THAs between April 2019 and October 2020 and had full-body lateral radiographs preoperatively and at one year postoperatively. We measured the pelvic incidence (PI), the sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic tilt, sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), and thoracic kyphosis to classify patients into types A, B1, B2, B3, and C. The change of pelvic tilt was predicted according to the normal range of SVA (0 mm to 50 mm) for types A, B1, B2, and B3, and based on the absolute value of one-third of the PI-LL mismatch for type C patients. The reliability of the classification of the patients and the prediction of the change of pelvic tilt were assessed using kappa values and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), respectively. Validity was assessed using the overall mean error and mean absolute error (MAE) for the prediction of the change of pelvic tilt. Results. The kappa values were 0.927 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.861 to 0.992) and 0.945 (95% CI 0.903 to 0.988) for the inter- and intraobserver reliabilities, respectively, and the ICCs ranged from 0.919 to 0.997. The overall mean error and MAE for the prediction of the change of pelvic tilt were -0.3° (SD 3.6°) and 2.8° (SD 2.4°), respectively. The overall absolute change of pelvic tilt was 5.0° (SD 4.1°). Pre- and postoperative values and changes in pelvic tilt, SVA, SS, and LL varied significantly among the five types of patient. Conclusion. We found that the proposed algorithm was reliable and valid for predicting the standing pelvic tilt after THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):19–27

This matched cohort study aims to (a) assess differences in spinopelvic characteristics of patients having sustained a dislocation following THA and a control THA group without dislocation; (b) identify spinopelvic characteristics associated with risk of dislocation and; (c) propose an algorithm to define the optimum cup orientation for minimizing dislocation risk. Fifty patients with a history of THA dislocation (29 posterior-, 21 anterior dislocations) were matched for age, gender, body mass index, index diagnosis, and femoral head size with 100 controls. All patients were reviewed and underwent detailed quasi-static radiographic evaluations of the coronal- (offset; center-of-rotation; cup inclination/anteversion) and sagittal- reconstructions (pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, pelvic-femoral-angle, cup ante-inclination). The spinopelvic balance (PI-LL), combined sagittal index (CSI= Pelvic-femoral-angle + Cup Anteinclination) and Hip-User-Index were determined. sagittal index (CSI= Pelvic-femoral-angle + Cup Anteinclination) and Hip-User-Index were determined. Parameters were compared between the two groups (2-group analysis) and between controls and per direction of dislocation (3-group analysis). There were marginal coronal differences between the groups. Sagittal parameters (lumbar-lordosis, pelvic-tilt, CSI, PI-LL and Hip-User-Index) differed significantly. PI-LL (>10°) and standing pelvic tilt (>18°) were the strongest predictors of dislocation risk (sensistivity:70%/specificity:70%). All hips with a standing CSI<195° dislocated posteriorly and all with CSI>260° dislocated anteriorly. A CSI between 200–245° was associated with significantly reduced risk of dislocation (OR:6; 95%CI:2.5–15.0; p<0.001). In patients with unbalanced and/or rigid lumbar spine, standing CSI of 215–245° was associated with significantly reduced dislocation risk (OR:10; 95%CI:3.2–29.8; p<0.001). PI-LL and standing pelvic-tilt determined from pre-operative, standing, lateral spinopelvic radiograph can be useful screening tools, alerting surgeons of patients at increased dislocation risk. Measurement of the pelvic-femoral angle pre-operatively provides valuable information to determine the optimum, cup orientation associated with reduced dislocation risk by aiming for a standing CSI of 200–245°

Aim:. To simplify sagittal plane spinal assessment by describing a single novel angle in the lumbar spine equivalent to the difference between pelvic incidence (PI) and lumbar lordosis (LL) and evaluate its reliability. Methods:. New sagittal modifiers in the classification of adult degenerative spinal deformity have been shown to be valid and reliable with the greatest variability being for pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL). This measurement can be simplified to a new angle (alpha) without the need to determine either PI or LL. This angle is between a line intersecting the bicoxofemoral centre and perpendicular to the L1 endplate (alpha line) and a line from the bicoxofemoral centre to the centre of the sacral endplate. Two readers graded 40 non-premarked cases twice each, approximately 1 week apart. Inter- and intra-rater variability and agreement were determined for PI-LL and alpha angle separately. Fleiss' kappa was used for reliability measures. Results:. Inter-rater kappa for PI-LL showed substantial reliability and alpha angle showed almost perfect agreement. Intra-rater kappa showed substantial reliability for PI-LL but almost perfect agreement for alpha angle across both readers. Discussion:. Alpha angle can be used as a surrogate for PI-LL and is easier and more reliable to measure. When PI=LL, alpha angle is 0, so the alpha line bisects the sacral plate. Conflict Of Interest Statement: No conflict of interest

Introduction. Hip osteoarthritis (OA) results in reduced hip range of motion and contracture, affecting sitting and standing posture. Spinal pathology such as fusion or deformity may alter the ability to compensate for reduced joint mobility in sitting and standing postures. The effects of postural spinal alignment change between sitting and standing is not well understood. Methods. A retrospective radiographic review was performed at a single academic institution of patients with sitting and standing full-body radiographs between 2012 and 2017. Patients were excluded if they had transitional lumbosacral anatomy, prior spinal fusion or hip prosthesis. Hip OA severity was graded by the Kellgren-Lawrence grades and divided into two groups: low-grade OA (LOA; grade 0–2) and severe OA (SOA; grade 3–4). Spinopelvic parameters (Pelvic Incidence (PI), Pelvic Tilt (PT), Lumbar Lordosis (LL), and PI-LL), Thoracic Kyphosis (TK; T4-T12), Global spinal alignment (SVA and T1-Pelvic Angle; TPA; T10-L2) as well as proximal femoral shaft angle (PFSA: as measured from the vertical), and hip flexion (difference between change in PT and change in PFSA) were also measured. Changes in sit-stand radiographic parameters were compared between the LOA and SOA groups with unpaired t-test. Results. 548 patients were identified with sit-stand radiographs, of which there were 311 patients with LOA & 237 with SOA. After propensity score matching for Age, BMI, and PI, 183 LOA & 183 SOA patients were analyzed. Standing alignment analysis demonstrated that SOA patients had greater SVA (31.1 ± 36.68 vs 21.7 ± 38.83, p=0.02), and lower TK (−36.21 ± 11.98 vs −41.09 ± 11.47, p<0.001). SOA patients had lower PT, greater PI-LL, lower LL, lower T10-L2, and lower TPA (p>0.05). PFSA (9.09 5.19 vs 7.41 4.48, p<0.001) was significantly different compared to LOA while SOA KA was not significantly different compared to LOA. Sitting alignment analysis demonstrated that SOA patients had higher PT (29.69 ± 15.65 vs 23.32 ± 12.12, p<0.001), higher PI-LL (21.64 ±17.86 vs 12.44 ±14.84 p<0.001), lower LL (31.67 ± 16.40 vs 41.58 ± 14.73, p<0.001), lower TK (−33.22 ± 15.76 vs −38.57 ± 13.01, p=0.01), greater TPA (27.91 ± 14.7 vs 22.55 ± 11.38 p=0.01). TK, SVA, and PFSA were not significantly different compared to LOA. SOA and LOA groups demonstrated differences in standing and sitting spinopelvic alignment for all global and regional parameters except PI. When examining the postural changes from standing to sitting, there was less hip ROM in SOA than LOA (71.45 ± 18.55 vs 81.64 ± 12.57, p<0.001). As a result, SOA patients had more change in PT (15.24 ± 16.32 vs 7.28 ± 10.19, p<0.001), PI-LL (20.62 ± 17.25 vs 13.74 ± 11.16, p<0.001), LL (−21.37 ± 15.55 vs −13.09 ± 12.34, p<0.001), and T10-L2 (−4.94 ± 7.45 vs −1.08 ± 5.19, p<0.001) to compensate. SOA had a greater improvement in TPA (15.06 vs 9.59, p<0.001), and less change in PFSA (86.65 vs 88.81, p<0.001) compared to LOA. Conclusions. Spinopelvic compensatory mechanisms are adapted for reduced joint mobility associated with hip OA in standing and sitting

Adverse spinopelvic characteristics (ASC) have been associated with increased dislocation risk following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). A stiff lumbar spine, a large posterior standing tilt when standing and severe sagittal spinal deformity have been identified as key risk factors for instability. It has been reported that the rate of dislocation in patients with such ASC may be increased and some authors have recommended the use of dual mobility bearings or robotics to reduce instability to within acceptable rates (<2%). The aims of the prospective study were to 1: Describe the true incidence of ASC in patients presenting for a THA 2. Assess whether such characteristics are associated with greater symptoms pre-THA due to the concomitant dual pathology of hip and spine and 3. Describe the early term dislocation rate with the use of ≤36mm bearings. This is an IRB-approved, two-center, multi-surgeon, prospective, consecutive, cohort study of 220 patients undergoing THA through anterolateral- (n=103; 46.8%), direct anterior- (n=104; 27.3%) or posterior- approaches (n=13; 5.9%). The mean age was 63.8±12.0 years (range: 27.7-89.0 years) and the mean BMI 28.0±5.0 kg/m. 2. (range: 19.4-44.4 kg/m. 2. ). There were 44 males (47.8%) and 48 females (52.2%). The mean follow-up was 1.6±0.5 years. Overall, 54% of femoral heads was 32 mm, and 46% was 36mm. All participants underwent lateral spinopelvic radiographs in the standing and deep-flexed seated positions were taken to determine lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic-femoral angle (PFA) and pelvic incidence (PI) in both positions. Spinal stiffness was defined as lumbar flexion <20° when transitioning between the standing and deep-seated position; adverse standing PT was defined as >19° and adverse sagittal lumbar balance was defined as mismatch between standing PI and LL >10°. Pre-operative patient reported outcomes was measured using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and EuroQol Five-Dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). Dislocation rates were prospectively recorded. Non-parametric tests were used, significance was set at p<0.05. The prevalence of PI-LL mismatch was 22.1% (43/195) and 30.4% had increased standing PT (59/194). The prevalence of lumbar stiffness was 3.5% (5/142) and these patients had all three adverse spinopelvic characteristics (5/142; 3.5%). There was no significant difference in the pre-operative OHS between patients with (20.7±7.6) and patients without adverse spinopelvic characteristics (21.6±8.7; p=0.721), nor was there for pre-operative EQ5D (0.651±0.081 vs. 0.563±0.190; p=0.295). Two patients sustained a dislocation (0.9%): One in the lateral (no ASC) and one in the posterior approaches, who also exhibited ASC pre-operatively. Sagittal lumbar imbalance, increased standing spinal tilt and spinal stiffness are not uncommon among patients undergoing THA. The presence of such characteristics is not associated with inferior pre-operative PROMs. However, when all characteristics are present, the risk of instability is increased. Patients with ASC treated with posterior approach THA may benefit from the use of advanced technology due to a high risk of dislocation. The use of such technology with the anterior or lateral approach to improve instability is to date unjustified as the rate of instability is low even amongst patients with ASCs

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

Introduction. Excessive standing posterior pelvic tilt (PT), lumbar spine stiffness, low pelvic Incidence (PI), and severe sagittal spinal deformity (SSD) have been linked to increased dislocation rates. We aimed to compare the prevalence of these 4 parameters in unstable and stable primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) patients. Methods. In this retrospective cohort study, 40 patients with instability following primary THA for osteoarthritis were referred for functional analysis. All patients received lateral X-rays in standing and flexed seated positions to assess functional pelvic tilt and lumbar lordosis (LL). Computed tomography scans were used to measure pelvic incidence and acetabular cup orientation. Literature thresholds for “at risk” spinopelvic parameters were standing pelvic tilt ≤ −10°, lumbar flexion (LL. stand. – LL. seated. ) ≤ 20°, PI ≤ 41°, and sagittal spinal deformity (PI – LL. stand. mismatch) ≥ 10°. The prevalence of each risk factor in the dislocation cohort was calculated and compared to a previously published cohort of 4042 stable THA patients. Results. Median supine cup inclination for the dislocating cohort was 43° (range, 26°- 58°). Median cup anteversion was 23° (range, 7° − 40°) for the dislocating cohort. 65% of the dislocating patients had socket positions within the Lewinnek safe zone (Figure 1). Standing PT (-10° v −1°), lumbar flexion (20° v 45°), and PI-LL mismatch (12° v −1°) were all significantly different (p < 0.001) in the dislocating group compared to the stable THA population (Figure 2). There was no difference in PI between the dislocating group and the stable THA population (58° v 56° respectively, p = 0.33), with the numbers available. 80% of the dislocating patients had one or more of the 3 statistically significant risk factors, compared to only 24% of the stable THA population. Conclusion. Excessive standing posterior pelvic tilt, low lumbar flexion and a severe SSD are highly prevalent in unstable THAs. Pre-op screening for these parameters may reduce the prevalence of dislocation. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Aims

The risk factors for abnormal spinopelvic mobility (SPM), defined as an anterior rotation of the spinopelvic tilt (∆SPT) ≥ 20° in a flexed-seated position, have been described. The implication of pelvic incidence (PI) is unclear, and the concept of lumbar lordosis (LL) based on anatomical limits may be erroneous. The distribution of LL, including a unusual shape in patients with a high lordosis, a low pelvic incidence, and an anteverted pelvis seems more relevant.

Objectives

The spinopelvic relationship (including pelvic incidence) has been shown to influence pelvic orientation, but its potential association with femoroacetabular impingement has not been thoroughly explored. The purpose of this study was to prove the hypothesis that decreasing pelvic incidence is associated with increased risk of cam morphology.