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°

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. Limb-length discrepancy (LLD) is a common postoperative complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study focuses on the correlation between patients’ perception of LLD after THA and the anatomical and functional leg length, pelvic and knee alignments and foot height. Previous publications have explored this topic in patients without significant spinal pathology or previous spine or lower extremity surgery. The objective of this work is to verify if the results are the same in case of stiff or fused spine. Methods. 170 patients with stiff spine (less than 10° L1-S1 lordosis variation between standing and sitting) were evaluated minimum 1 year after unilateral primary THA implantation using EOS® images in standing position (46/170 had previous lumbar fusion). We excluded cases with previous lower limbs surgery or frontal and sagittal spinal imbalance. 3D measures were performed to evaluate femoral and tibial length, femoral offset, pelvic obliquity, hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), knee flexion/hyperextension angle, tibial and femoral rotation. Axial pelvic rotation was measured as the angle between the line through the centers of the hips and the EOS x-ray beam source. The distance between middle of the tibial plafond and the ground was used to investigate the height of the foot. For data with normal distribution, paired Student's t-test and independent sample t-test were used for analysis. Univariate logistic regression was used to determine the correlation between the perception of limb length discrepancy and different variables. Multiple logistic regression was used to investigate the correlation between the patient perception of LLD and variables found significant in the univariate analysis. Significance level was set at 0.05. Results. Anatomical femoral length correlated with patients’ perception of LLD but other variables were significant (the height of the foot, sagittal and frontal knee alignment, pelvic obliquity and pelvic rotation more than 10°). Interestingly some factors induced an unexpected perception of LLD despite a non-significant femoral length discrepancy less than 1cm (pelvic rotation and obliquity, height of the foot). Conclusions. LLD is a multifactorial problem. This study showed that the anatomical femoral length as the factor that can be modified with THA technique or choice of prosthesis is not the only important factor. A comprehensive clinical and radiological evaluation is necessary preoperatively to investigate spinal stiffness, pelvic obliquity and rotation, sagittal and coronal knee alignment and foot deformity in these patients. Our study has limitations as we do not have preoperative EOS measurements for all patients. We cannot assess changes in leg length as a result of THA. We also did not investigate the degree of any foot deformities as flat foot deformity may potentially affect the patients perception of the leg length. Instead, we measured the distance between the medial malleolus and ground that can reflect the foot arch height. More cases must be included to evaluate the potential influence of pelvis anatomy and functional orientation (pelvic incidence, sacral slope and pelvic tilt) but this study points out that spinal stiffness significantly decreases the LLD tolerance previously reported in patients without degenerative stiffness or fusion