Introduction. Optimal implant position is the important factor in the hip stability after THA. Both the acetabular and femoral implants are placed in anteversion. While most hip dislocations occur either in standing position or when the hip is flexed, preoperative hip anatomy and postoperative implants position are commonly measured in supine position with CT scan. The isolated and combined anteversions of femoral and acetabular components have been reported in the literature. The conclusions are questionable as the reference planes are not consistent: femoral anteversion is measured according to the distal femoral condyles plane (DFCP) and acetabulum orientation in the anterior pelvic plane (APP)). The EOS imaging system allows combined measurements for standing position in the “anatomical” reference plane or anterior pelvic plane (APP) or in the patient “functional” plane (PFP) defined as the horizontal plane passing through both femoral heads. The femoral anteversion can also be measured conventionally according to the DFCP. The objective of the study was to determine the preoperative and postoperative acetabular, femoral and combined hip anteversions, sacral slope, pelvic incidence and pelvic tilt in patients who undergo primary THA. Material and Methods. The preoperative and postoperative 3D EOS images were assessed in 62 patients (66 hips). None of these patients had spine or lower extremity surgery other than THA surgery in between the 2 EOS assessments. None had dislocation within the follow up time period. Results. Pelvic values. The preoperative sacral slope was 42.4°(11° to 76°) as compared to the postoperative sacral slope (40.3°, −4° to 64°)(p=0.014). The preoperative pelvic tilt was 15.3° (−10° to 44°) as compared to the postoperative tilt (17.2°, −6° to 47°)(p=0.008). The preoperative pelvic incidence was 57.7°(34° to 93°) and globally unchanged as compared to the postoperative incidence (57.5°, 33° to 79°)(p=0.8). Acetabular values. Surgeons increased the anteversion according to the APP by an average of 12.6°(−13° to 53°)(p<0.001). Acetabular anteversion was increased by 14.3° in the PFP (−11° to 51°)(p<0.001). Femoral values. In the DFCP, preoperative neck anteversion was decreased postoperatively by an average of −3,2°(−48° to 33°)(p=0,0942). In the PFP, preoperative neck anteversion was decreased postoperatively by an average of −6,3°(−47° to 17°)(p<0,001). Combined values. According to the classical methods (acetabular orientation in the APP and femoral anteversion in the DFCP), mean preoperative combined anteversion was 36.1° (4° to 86°) and was increased postoperatively to 45.5°(−12° to 98°)(p=0.0003). According to the PFP, mean preoperative combined anteversion was 30,7°(5° to 68°) and was increased postoperatively to 38,8°(−10° to 72°)(p=0,0001). Conclusion. This study reports two methods for the measurement of acetabular and femoral anteversion, “anatomical” according to the APP and DFCP and “functional” according to the PFP. Surgeons tend to increase the anteversion of the acetabular implant and to decrease femoral anteversion during the surgery. The trend is the same for postoperative evolution of values using the “anatomical” or the “functional” methods but numerical discrepancies are explained by significant APP orientation changes. The assessment of the true combined anteversion provides new perspectives to optimize our understanding of THA stability and function