Aims. While previously underappreciated, factors related to the spine contribute substantially to the risk of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). These factors must be taken into consideration during preoperative planning for revision THA due to recurrent instability. We developed a protocol to assess the functional position of the spine, the significance of these findings, and how to address different pathologies at the time of revision THA. Patients and Methods. Prospectively collected data on 111 patients undergoing revision THA for recurrent instability from January 2014 to January 2017 at two institutions were included (protocol group) and matched 1:1 to 111 revisions specifically performed for instability not using this protocol (control group). Mean follow-up was 2.8 years. Protocol patients underwent standardized preoperative imaging including supine and standing anteroposterior (AP) pelvis and lateral radiographs. Each case was scored according to the Hip-Spine Classification in Revision THA. Results. Survival free of dislocation at two years was 97% in the protocol group (three dislocations, all within three months of surgery) versus 84% in the control group (18 patients). Furthermore, 77% of the inappropriately positioned acetabular components would have been unrecognized by supine AP pelvis imaging alone. Conclusion. Using the Hip-Spine Classification System in revision THA, we demonstrated a significant decrease in the risk of recurrent instability compared with a control group. Without the use of this algorithm, 77% of inappropriately positioned acetabular components would have been unrecognized and incorrect treatment may have been instituted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:817–823

Purpose. Patients may present with concurrent symptomatic hip and spine problems, with surgical treatment indicated for both. Controversy exists over which procedure, total hip arthroplasty (THA) or lumbar spine procedure, should be performed first, and does the surgeon's area of expertise influence the choice. Materials & Methods. Clinical scenarios were devised for 5 fictional patients with both symptomatic hip and lumbar spine disorders for which surgical treatment was indicated. An email with survey link was sent to 110 clinical members of the Hip Society and 101 experienced spine surgeons in the USA requesting responses to: which procedure should be performed first, and the rationale for the decision with comments. The clinical scenarios were painful hip osteoarthritis and (1) lumbar spinal stenosis with neurologic claudication; (2) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with leg pain; (3) lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness; (4) lumbar scoliosis with back pain; and (5) thoracolumbar disc herniation with myelopathy. Surgeon choices were compared among scenarios and between surgical specialties using chi-square analysis and comments analyzed using text mining. Results. Complete responses were received from 51 hip surgeons (46%), with a mean of 30.8 (+ 10.4) years of practice experience, and 37 spine surgeons (37%), with a mean of 23.4 (+ 6.5) years of experience. The percentages of hip surgeons recommending “THA first” differ significantly among scenarios: 59% for scenario 1; 73% for scenario 2; 47% for scenario 3; 47% for scenario 4; and 10% for scenario 5 (χ. 2. =44.5, p<0.001). The percentages of spine surgeons recommending “THA first” were 49% for scenario 1; 70% for scenario 2; 19% for scenario 3; 78% for scenario 4; and 0% for scenario 5. There were significant differences between the surgeon groups only for scenarios 3 and 4 (Fishers exact test, p=0.003 and p=0.006 respectively). Hip surgeons were significantly more likely to choose “THA first” despite radicular leg pain (scenario 2), and less likely to choose “THA first” with the presence of myelopathy (scenario 5). The choice of “THA first” in scenarios 1, 3, and 4 were more equivocal, dependent on surgeon impression of clinical severity. Spine surgeons were more likely to recommend THA first with back pain caused by spinal deformity, and spine surgery first with lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness. Surgeon comments suggested the utility of injection of the joint for decision making, the merit of predictable outcome with THA first, leg weakness as an indication for spine surgery, the concern of THA position with spinal deformity, and the urgency of myelopathy. Conclusion. With the presence of concurrent hip and spine problems, the question of “THA or lumbar surgery first” remains controversial in certain clinical scenarios, even for experienced hip and spine surgeons. Additional outcome studies of these patients are necessary for appropriate decision making

Introduction. The effect of spine-pelvis position and motion on hip arthroplasty function has been increasingly appreciated in the past several years. Some authors have stressed the importance of using precision technologies for component placement while others have advocated the use of dual mobility articulations or large bearings and lateralized liners in patients with fused lumbar spines. The current study assesses the prevalence of stiff and fused spines in an elective total hip arthroplasty population. Methods. One hundred and forty-nine patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty were assessed preoperatively with CT (computed tomography) and functional radiographs for the purpose of CT based planning and intraoperative navigation of total hip arthroplasty (HipXpert System, Surgical Planning Associates, Inc., Boston, MA). The functional radiographs included standing and sitting lateral images (EOS Imaging, SA, Paris, France). Patients were assessed for supine, standing and sitting pelvic tilt (PT) and change in sacral slope (SS). Spine stiffness was defined by a change in sacral slope (SS) of less than or equal to 10 degrees on the standing to sitting lateral radiographs according to Luthringer et al JOA 2019. Results. Of these 149 patients, 2 (1.5%) had been previously treated by instrumented lumbar fusion. Thirty-nine additional patients (26.1%) had stiff spines as defined by a change in sacral slope of less than 10 degrees from standing to sitting. The mean supine PT measured by CT scan was 3.46 degrees of anterior PT which is similar to previously described in the literature. The mean supine PT in stiff spine patients measured 1.5 degrees of anterior tilt which was not statistically significant. The mean standing pelvic tilt measured 0.0 degrees in the all patients and −4.3 degrees in stiff spine patients. The mean sitting pelvic tilt was −18.9 degrees in the entire cohort and −11.3 degrees in the stiff spine patients. The difference in pelvic tilt between these two groups was statistically significant with p-values of 0.002 and 0.006, respectively. Discussion and Conclusion. Although the incidence of formal instrumented spine fusion was low in this cohort (1.5%), the incidence of spine stiffness was very high at 27.6%. Given that hip instability has been decreasing owing to a variety of techniques including larger bearings, intraoperative radiography, and intraoperative precision technologies, advocacy for the use of dual mobility implants simply for a history of spine fusion does not appear to be logical given that most stiff spines have not had a surgical fusion

Aims. Patients may present with concurrent symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, with surgical treatment being indicated for both. Whether arthroplasty of the hip or spinal surgery should be performed first remains uncertain. Materials and Methods. Clinical scenarios were devised for a survey asking the preferred order of surgery and the rationale for this decision for five fictional patients with both OA of the hip and degenerative lumbar disorders. These were symptomatic OA of the hip and: 1) lumbar spinal stenosis with neurological claudication; 2) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with leg pain; 3) lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness; 4) lumbar scoliosis with back pain; and 5) thoracolumbar disc herniation with myelopathy. This survey was sent to 110 members of The Hip Society and 101 members of the Scoliosis Research Society. The choices of the surgeons were compared among scenarios and between surgical specialties using the chi-squared test. The free-text comments were analyzed using text-mining. Results. Responses were received from 51 hip surgeons (46%) and 37 spine surgeons (37%). The percentages of hip surgeons recommending ‘hip first’ differed significantly among scenarios: 59% for scenario 1; 73% for scenario 2; 47% for scenario 3; 47% for scenario 4; and 10% for scenario 5 (p < 0.001). The percentages of spine surgeons recommending ‘hip first’ were 49% for scenario 1; 70% for scenario 2; 19% for scenario 3; 78% for scenario 4; and 0% for scenario 5. There were significant differences between the groups for scenarios 3 (more hip surgeons recommended ‘hip first’; p = 0.012) and 4 (more hip surgeons recommended ‘spine first’; p = 0.006). Conclusion. In patients with coexistent OA of the hip and degenerative disorders of the spine, the question of ‘hip or spinal surgery first’ elicits relatively consistent answers in some clinical scenarios, but remains controversial in others, even for experienced surgeons. The nature of neurological symptoms can influence surgeons’ decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):37–44

Aims. Adverse spinal motion or balance (spine mobility) and adverse pelvic mobility, in combination, are often referred to as adverse spinopelvic mobility (SPM). A stiff lumbar spine, large posterior standing pelvic tilt, and severe sagittal spinal deformity have been identified as risk factors for increased hip instability. Adverse SPM can create functional malposition of the acetabular components and hence is an instability risk. Adverse pelvic mobility is often, but not always, associated with abnormal spinal motion parameters. Dislocation rates for dual-mobility articulations (DMAs) have been reported to be between 0% and 1.1%. The aim of this study was to determine the early survivorship from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) of patients with adverse SPM who received a DMA. Methods. A multicentre study was performed using data from 227 patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), enrolled consecutively. All the patients who had one or more adverse spine or pelvic mobility parameter had a DMA inserted at the time of their surgery. The mean age was 76 years (22 to 93) and 63% were female (n = 145). At a mean of 14 months (5 to 31) postoperatively, the AOANJRR was analyzed for follow-up information. Reasons for revision and types of revision were identified. Results. The AOANJRR reported two revisions: one due to infection, and the second due to femoral component loosening. No revisions for dislocation were reported. One patient died with the prosthesis in situ. Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 99.1% (95% confidence interval 98.3 to 100) at 14 months (number at risk 104). Conclusion. In our cohort of patients undergoing primary THA with one or more factor associated with adverse SPM, DM bearings conferred stability at two years’ follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):820–825

Variation in pelvic tilt during postural changes may affect functional alignment. The primary objective of this study was to quantify the changes in lumbo-pelvic-femoral alignment from sitting to standing in patients undergoing THA. 144 patients were enrolled. Standing and sitting radiographs using the EOS imaging system were analyzed preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Pelvic incidence (PI), lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), proximal femoral angle (PFA) and spine/femoroacetabular flexion were determined. 38 patients had multilevel DDD (26%). Following THA, patients sat with increased anterior pelvic tilt demonstrated by a significant increase in sitting lumbar lordosis (28° preop vs 35° postop; p<0.01) and sacral slope (18° vs 23°; p<0.01). Following THA, patients flexed less through their spines (preop 26° vs postop 19°; p<0.01) and more through their hips (femoroacetabular flexion) (preop 60° vs postop 67°; p<0.01) to achieve sitting position. Patients with multilevel DDD sat with less spine flexion (normal 22° vs spine 13°; p<0.01), less change in sacral slope (more relative anterior tilt) (17° vs 9°; p<0.01), and more femoroacetabular flexion (64° vs 71°; p<0.01). For the majority of patients after THA, a larger proportion of lumbo-pelvic-femoral flexion necessary to achieve a sitting position is derived from femoroacetabular flexion with an associated increase in anterior pelvic tilt and a decrease in lumbar spine flexion. These changes are more pronounced among patients with multilevel DDD. Surgeons may consider orienting the acetabular component with greater anteversion and inclination in patients identified preoperatively to have anterior pelvic tilt or significant DDD

Patients may present with concurrent symptomatic hip and spine problems, with surgical treatment indicated for both. Controversy exists over which procedure, total hip arthroplasty (THA) or lumbar spine procedure, should be performed first. Clinical scenarios were devised for 5 fictional patients with both symptomatic hip and lumbar spine disorders for which surgical treatment was indicated. An email with survey link was sent to 110 clinical members of the NA Hip Society requesting responses to: which procedure should be performed first; the rationale for the decision with comments, and the type of THA prosthesis if “THA first” was chosen. The clinical scenarios were painful hip osteoarthritis and (1) lumbar spinal stenosis with neurologic claudication; (2) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with leg pain; (3) lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness; (4) lumbar scoliosis with back pain; and (5) thoracolumbar disc herniation with myelopathy. Surgeon choices were compared among scenarios using chi-square analysis and comments analyzed using text mining. Complete responses were received from 51 members (46%), with a mean of 30.8 (± 10.4) years of practice experience. The percentages of surgeons recommending “THA first” were 59% for scenario 1; 73% for scenario 2; 47% for scenario 3; 47% for scenario 4; and 10% for scenario 5 (χ. 2. =44.5, p<0.001). Surgeons were significantly more likely to choose “THA first” despite radicular leg pain (scenario 2), and less likely to choose “THA first” with the presence of myelopathy (scenario 5). The choice of “THA first” in scenarios 1, 3, and 4 were more equivocal, dependent on surgeon impression of clinical severity. For type of THA prosthesis, dual mobility component was chosen by: 12% in scenario 1; 16% in scenario 2; 8% in scenario 3; 24% in scenario 4; and 10% in scenario 5. Surgeons were more likely to choose dual mobility in scenario 4, but with the numbers available this was not statistically significant (χ. 2. =6.6, p=0.16). The analysis of comments suggested the importance of injection of the joint for decision making, the merit of predictable outcome with THA first, the concern of THA position with spinal deformity, and the urgency of myelopathy. With the presence of concurrent hip and spine problems, the question of “THA or lumbar surgery first” remains controversial even for a group of experienced hip surgeons. Outcome studies of these patients are necessary for appropriate decision making

Aims. This study of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip aimed to: 1) characterize the contribution of the hip, spinopelvic complex, and lumbar spine when moving from the standing to the sitting position; 2) assess whether abnormal spinopelvic mobility is associated with worse symptoms; and 3) identify whether spinopelvic mobility can be predicted from static anatomical radiological parameters. Patients and Methods. A total of 122 patients with end-stage OA of the hip awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA) were prospectively studied. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; Oxford Hip Score, Oswestry Disability Index, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey Score) and clinical data were collected. Sagittal spinopelvic mobility was calculated as the change from the standing to sitting position using the lumbar lordosis angle (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic-femoral angle (PFA), and acetabular anteinclination (AI) from lateral radiographs. The interaction of the different parameters was assessed. PROMs were compared between patients with normal spinopelvic mobility (10° ≤ ∆PT ≤ 30°) or abnormal spinopelvic mobility (stiff: ∆PT < ± 10°; hypermobile: ∆PT > ± 30°). Multiple regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were used to test for possible predictors of spinopelvic mobility. Results. Standing to sitting, the hip flexed by a mean of 57° (. sd. 17°), the pelvis tilted backwards by a mean of 20° (. sd. 12°), and the lumbar spine flexed by a mean of 20° (. sd. 14°); strong correlations were detected. There was no difference in PROMs between patients in the different spinopelvic mobility groups. Maximum hip flexion, standing PT, and standing AI were independent predictors of spinopelvic mobility (R. 2. = 0.42). The combined thresholds for standing was PT ≥ 13° and hip flexion ≥ 88° in the clinical examination, and had 90% sensitivity and 63% specificity of predicting spinopelvic stiffness, while SS ≥ 42° had 84% sensitivity and 67% specificity of predicting spinopelvic hypermobility. Conclusion. The hip, on average, accounts for three-quarters of the standing-to-sitting movement, but there is great variation. Abnormal spinopelvic mobility cannot be screened with PROMs. However, clinical and standing radiological features can predict spinopelvic mobility with good enough accuracy, allowing them to be used as reliable screening tools. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:902–909

Aims

It has been well documented in the arthroplasty literature that lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) contributes to abnormal spinopelvic motion. However, the relationship between the severity or pattern of hip osteoarthritis (OA) as measured on an anteroposterior (AP) pelvic view and spinopelvic biomechanics has not been well investigated. Therefore, the aim of the study is to examine the association between the severity and pattern of hip OA and spinopelvic motion.

Aims. Some patients presenting with hip pain and instability and underlying acetabular dysplasia (AD) do not experience resolution of symptoms after surgical management. Hip-spine syndrome is a possible underlying cause. We hypothesized that there is a higher frequency of radiological spine anomalies in patients with AD. We also assessed the relationship between radiological severity of AD and frequency of spine anomalies. Methods. In a retrospective analysis of registry data, 122 hips in 122 patients who presented with hip pain and and a final diagnosis of AD were studied. Two observers analyzed hip and spine variables using standard radiographs to assess AD. The frequency of lumbosacral transitional vertebra (LSTV), along with associated Castellvi grade, pars interarticularis defect, and spinal morphological measurements were recorded and correlated with radiological severity of AD. Results. Out of 122 patients, 110 (90.2%) were female and 12 (9.8%) were male. We analyzed the radiographs of 122 hips (59 (48.4%) symptomatic left hips, and 63 (51.6%) symptomatic right hips). Average age at time of presentation was 34.2 years (SD 11.2). Frequency of LSTV was high (39% to 43%), compared to historic records from the general population, with Castellvi type 3b being the most common (60% to 63%). Patients with AD have increased L4 and L5 interpedicular distance compared to published values. Frequency of pars interarticularis defect was 4%. Intraclass correlation coefficient for hip and spine variables assessed ranged from good (0.60 to 0.75) to excellent (0.75 to 1.00). Severity of AD did not demonstrate significant correlation with frequency of radiological spine anomalies. Conclusion. Patients with AD have increased frequency of spinal anomalies seen on standard hip radiographs. However, there exists no correlation between radiological severity of AD and frequency of spine anomalies. In managing AD patients, clinicians should also assess spinal anomalies that are easily found on standard hip radiographs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1351–1357

Aims. Osteoporosis is common in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients. It plays a substantial factor in the surgery’s outcome, and previous studies have revealed that pharmacological treatment for osteoporosis influences implant survival rate. The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of and treatment rates for osteoporosis prior to THA, and to explore differences in osteoporosis-related biomarkers between patients treated and untreated for osteoporosis. Methods. This single-centre retrospective study included 398 hip joints of patients who underwent THA. Using medical records, we examined preoperative bone mineral density measures of the hip and lumbar spine using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans and the medications used to treat osteoporosis at the time of admission. We also assessed the following osteoporosis-related biomarkers: tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP-5b); total procollagen type 1 amino-terminal propeptide (total P1NP); intact parathyroid hormone; and homocysteine. Results. The prevalence of DXA-proven hip osteoporosis (T-score ≤ -2.5) among THA patients was 8.8% (35 of 398). The spinal osteoporosis prevalence rate was 4.5% (18 of 398), and 244 patients (61.3%; 244 of 398) had osteopenia (-2.5 < T-score ≤ -1) or osteoporosis of either the hip or spine. The rate of pharmacological osteoporosis treatment was 22.1% (88 of 398). TRACP-5b was significantly lower in the osteoporosis-treated group than in the untreated group (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Osteoporosis is common in patients undergoing THA, but the diagnosis and treatment for osteoporosis were insufficient. The lower TRACP-5b levels in the osteoporosis-treated group — that is, osteoclast suppression — may contribute to the reduction of the postoperative revision rate after THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(12):873–880

Aims. Acetabular retroversion is a recognized cause of hip impingement and can be influenced by pelvic tilt (PT), which changes in different functional positions. Positional changes in PT have not previously been studied in patients with acetabular retroversion. Methods. Supine and standing anteroposterior (AP) pelvic radiographs were retrospectively analyzed in 69 patients treated for symptomatic acetabular retroversion. Measurements were made for acetabular index (AI), lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA), crossover index, ischial spine sign, and posterior wall sign. The change in the angle of PT was measured both by the sacro-femoral-pubic (SFP) angle and the pubic symphysis to sacroiliac (PS-SI) index. Results. In the supine position, the mean PT (by SFP) was 1.05° (SD 3.77°), which changed on standing to a PT of 8.64° (SD 5.34°). A significant increase in posterior PT from supine to standing of 7.59° (SD 4.5°; SFP angle) and 5.89° (SD 3.33°; PS-SI index) was calculated (p < 0.001). There was a good correlation in PT change between measurements using SFP angle and PS-SI index (0.901 in the preoperative group and 0.815 in the postoperative group). Signs of retroversion were significantly reduced in standing radiographs compared to supine: crossover index (0.16 (SD 0.16) vs 0.38 (SD 0.15); p < 0.001), crossover sign (19/28 hips vs 28/28 hips; p < 0.001), ischial spine sign (10/28 hips vs 26/28 hips; p < 0.001), and posterior wall sign (12/28 hips vs 24/28 hips; p < 0.001). Conclusion. Posterior PT increased from supine to standing in patients with symptomatic acetabular retroversion. The features of acetabular retroversion were less evident on standing radiographs. The low PT angle in the supine position is a factor in the increased appearance of acetabular retroversion. Patients presenting with symptoms of hip impingement should be assessed by supine and standing pelvic radiographs to highlight signs of acetabular retroversion, and to assist with optimizing acetabular correction at the time of surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):786–791

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. Methods. The clinical data of 311 consecutive patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty was retrospectively analyzed. We analyzed the different types of lumbar shapes that can present in patients to identify their potential associations with abnormal pelvic mobility, and we analyzed the potential risk factors associated with a ∆SPT ≥ 20° in the overall population. Results. ΔSPT ≥ 20° rates were 28.3%, 11.8%, and 14.3% for patients whose spine shape was low PI/low lordosis (group 1), low PI anteverted (group 2), and high PI/high lordosis (group 3), respectively (p = 0.034). There was no association between ΔSPT ≥ 20° and PI ≤ 41° (odds ratio (OR) 2.01 (95% confidence interval (CI)0.88 to 4.62), p = 0.136). In the multivariate analysis, the following independent predictors of ΔSPT ≥ 20° were identified: SPT ≤ -10° (OR 3.49 (95% CI 1.59 to 7.66), p = 0.002), IP-LL ≥ 20 (OR 4.38 (95% CI 1.16 to 16.48), p = 0.029), and group 1 (OR 2.47 (95% CI 1.19; to 5.09), p = 0.0148). Conclusion. If the PI value alone is not indicative of SPM, patients with a low PI, low lordosis and a lumbar apex at L4-L5 or below will have higher rates of abnormal SPM than patients with a low PI anteverted and high lordosis. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):668–675

Aims. The aim of the study was to compare two methods of calculating pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic tilt (PT), either by using the femoral heads or acetabular domes to determine the bicoxofemoral axis, in patients with unilateral or bilateral primary hip osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. PI and PT were measured on standing lateral radiographs of the spine in two groups: 50 patients with unilateral (Group I) and 50 patients with bilateral hip OA (Group II), using the femoral heads or acetabular domes to define the bicoxofemoral axis. Agreement between the methods was determined by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the standard error of measurement (SEm). The intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability of the two methods were analyzed on 31 radiographs in both groups to calculate ICC and SEm. Results. In both groups, excellent agreement between the two methods was obtained, with ICC of 0.99 and SEm 0.3° for Group I, and ICC 0.99 and SEm 0.4° for Group II. The intraobserver reproducibility was excellent for both methods in both groups, with an ICC of at least 0.97 and SEm not exceeding 0.8°. The study also revealed excellent interobserver reliability for both methods in both groups, with ICC 0.99 and SEm 0.5° or less. Conclusion. Either the femoral heads or acetabular domes can be used to define the bicoxofemoral axis on the lateral standing radiographs of the spine for measuring PI and PT in patients with idiopathic unilateral or bilateral hip OA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1345–1350

Aims. Leg length discrepancy (LLD) is a common pre- and postoperative issue in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients. The conventional technique for measuring LLD has historically been on a non-weightbearing anteroposterior pelvic radiograph; however, this does not capture many potential sources of LLD. The aim of this study was to determine if long-limb EOS radiology can provide a more reproducible and holistic measurement of LLD. Methods. In all, 93 patients who underwent a THA received a standardized preoperative EOS scan, anteroposterior (AP) radiograph, and clinical LLD assessment. Overall, 13 measurements were taken along both anatomical and functional axes and measured twice by an orthopaedic fellow and surgical planning engineer to calculate intraoperator reproducibility and correlations between measurements. Results. Strong correlations were observed for all EOS measurements (r. s. > 0.9). The strongest correlation with AP radiograph (inter-teardrop line) was observed for functional-ASIS-to-floor (functional) (r. s. = 0.57), much weaker than the correlations between EOS measurements. ASIS-to-ankle measurements exhibited a high correlation to other linear measurements and the highest ICC (r. s. = 0.97). Using anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS)-to-ankle, 33% of patients had an absolute LLD of greater than 10 mm, which was statistically different from the inter-teardrop LLD measurement (p < 0.005). Discussion. We found that the conventional measurement of LLD on AP pelvic radiograph does not correlate well with long leg measurements and may not provide a true appreciation of LLD. ASIS-to-ankle demonstrated improved detection of potential LLD than other EOS and radiograph measurements. Full length, functional imaging methods may become the new gold standard to measure LLD. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):960–968

Adverse spinopelvic mobility (SPM) has been shown to increase risk of dislocation of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). In patients undergoing THA, prevalence of adverse SPM has been shown to be as high as 41%. Stiff lumbar spine, large posterior standing pelvic tilt and severe sagittal spinal deformity have been identified as risk factors for increased hip instability. Dislocation rates for dual mobility articulations have been reported to be 0% to 1.1%. The aim of this study was to determine the early survivorship from the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) of patients with adverse SPM who received a dual mobility articulation. A multicentre study was performed using data from 229 patients undergoing primary THA, enrolled consecutively. All the patients who had one or more adverse spine or pelvic mobility parameters had a dual mobility articulation inserted at the time of their surgery. Average age was 76 (22 to 93) years and 63% were female. At a mean of 2.1 (1 – 3.3) years post-op, the AOANJRR was analysed for follow-up. Reasons for revision and types of revision were identified. The AOANJRR reported two revisions. One due to infection and the second due to femoral component loosening. No revisions for dislocation were reported. One patient died with the prosthesis in situ. Kaplan Meier survival was 99.3% (CI 98.3% − 100%) at 2 years. DM bearings reduce the risk of dislocation of primary THA in patients with adverse spine and pelvic mobility

Aims. Cross-table lateral (CTL) radiographs are commonly used to measure acetabular component anteversion after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The CTL measurements may differ by > 10° from CT scan measurements but the reasons for this discrepancy are poorly understood. Anteversion measurements from CTL radiographs and CT scans are compared to identify spinopelvic parameters predictive of inaccuracy. Methods. THA patients (n = 47; 27 males, 20 females; mean age 62.9 years (SD 6.95)) with preoperative spinopelvic mobility, radiological analysis, and postoperative CT scans were retrospectively reviewed. Acetabular component anteversion was measured on postoperative CTL radiographs and CT scans using 3D reconstructions of the pelvis. Two cohorts were identified based on a CTL-CT error of ≥ 10° (n = 11) or < 10° (n = 36). Spinopelvic mobility parameters were compared using independent-samples t-tests. Correlation between error and mobility parameters were assessed with Pearson’s coefficient. Results. Patients with CTL error > 10° (10° to 14°) had stiffer lumbar spines with less mean lumbar flexion (38.9°(SD 11.6°) vs 47.4° (SD 13.1°); p = 0.030), different sagittal balance measured by pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (5.9° (SD 18.8°) vs -1.7° (SD 9.8°); p = 0.042), more pelvic extension when seated (pelvic tilt -9.7° (SD 14.1°) vs -2.2° (SD 13.2°); p = 0.050), and greater change in pelvic tilt between supine and seated positions (12.6° (SD 12.1°) vs 4.7° (SD 12.5°); p = 0.036). The CTL measurement error showed a positive correlation with increased CTL anteversion (r = 0.5; p = 0.001), standing lordosis (r = 0.23; p = 0.050), seated lordosis (r = 0.4; p = 0.009), and pelvic tilt change between supine and step-up positions (r = 0.34; p = 0.010). Conclusion. Differences in spinopelvic mobility may explain the variability of acetabular anteversion measurements made on CTL radiographs. Patients with stiff spines and increased compensatory pelvic movement have less accurate measurements on CTL radiographs. Flexion of the contralateral hip is required to obtain clear CTL radiographs. In patients with lumbar stiffness, this movement may extend the pelvis and increase anteversion of the acetabulum on CTL views. Reliable analysis of acetabular component anteversion in this patient population may require advanced imaging with a CT scan. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):59–65

Acetabular retroversion is a recognised cause of hip impingement. Pelvic tilt influences acetabular orientation and is known to change in different functional positions. While previously reported in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip, positional changes in pelvic tilt have not been studied in patients with acetabular retroversion. We retrospectively analysed supine and standing AP pelvic radiographs in 22 patients with preoperative radiographs and 47 with post-operative radiographs treated for symptomatic acetabular retroversion. Measurements were made for acetabular index (AI), lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA), crossover index, ischial spine sign, and posterior wall sign. The change in pelvic tilt angle was measured both by the Sacro-Femoral-Pubic (SFP) angle and the Pubic Symphysis to Sacro-iliac (PS-SI) Index. In the supine position, the mean calculated pelvic tilt angle (by SFP) was 1.05° which changed on standing to a pelvic tilt of 8.64°. A significant increase in posterior pelvic tilt angle from supine to standing of 7.59° (SFP angle) and 5.89° (PS –SI index) was calculated (p<0.001;paired t-test). There was a good correlation in pelvic tilt change between measurements using SFP angle and PS-SI index (rho .901 in pre-op group, rho .815 in post-op group). Signs of retroversion were significantly reduced in standing x-rays compared to supine: Crossover index (0.16 vs 0.38; p<0.001) crossover sign (19/28 vs 28/28 hips; p<0.001), ischial spine sign (10/28 hips vs 26/28 hips; p<0.001) and posterior wall sign (12/28 vs 24/28 hips; p<0.001). Posterior pelvic tilt increased from supine to standing in patients with symptomatic acetabular retroversion, in keeping with previous studies of pelvic tilt change in patients with hip dysplasia. The features of acetabular retroversion were much less evident on standing radiographs. The low pelvic tilt angle in the supine position is implicated in the appearance of acetabular retroversion in the supine position. Patients presenting with symptoms of hip impingement should be assessed by supine and standing pelvic radiographs so as not to miss signs of retroversion and to assist with optimising acetabular correction at the time of surgery

Aims. Pelvic incidence (PI) is a position-independent spinopelvic parameter traditionally used by spinal surgeons to determine spinal alignment. Its relevance to the arthroplasty surgeon in assessing patient risk for total hip arthroplasty (THA) instability preoperatively is unclear. This study was undertaken to investigate the significance of PI relative to other spinopelvic parameter risk factors for instability to help guide its clinical application. Methods. Retrospective analysis was performed of a multicentre THA database of 9,414 patients with preoperative imaging (dynamic spinopelvic radiographs and pelvic CT scans). Several spinopelvic parameter measurements were made by engineers using advanced software including sacral slope (SS), standing anterior pelvic plane tilt (APPT), spinopelvic tilt (SPT), lumbar lordosis (LL), and PI. Lumbar flexion (LF) was determined by change in LL between standing and flexed-seated lateral radiographs. Abnormal pelvic mobility was defined as ∆SPT ≥ 20° between standing and flexed-forward positions. Sagittal spinal deformity (SSD) was defined as PI-LL mismatch > 10°. Results. PI showed a positive correlation with parameters of SS, SPT, and LL (r-value range 0.468 to 0.661). Patients with a higher PI value showed higher degrees of standing LL, likely as a compensatory measure to maintain sagittal spine balance. There was a positive correlation between LL and LF such that patients with less standing LL had decreased LF (r = 0.49). Similarly, there was a positive correlation between increased SSD and decreased LF (r = 0.54). PI in isolation did not show any significant correlation with lumbar (r = 0.04) or pelvic mobility (r = 0.02). The majority of patients (range 89.4% to 94.2%) had normal lumbar and pelvic mobility regardless of the PI value. Conclusion. The PI value alone is not indicative of either spinal or pelvic mobility, and thus in isolation may not be a risk factor for THA instability. Patients with SSD had higher rates of spinopelvic stiffness, which may be the mechanism by which PI relates to THA instability risk, but further clinical studies are required. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):352–358

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