Spinopelvic mobility describes the change in lumbar lordosis and pelvic tilt from standing to sitting position. For 1° of posterior pelvic tilt, functional cup anteversion increases by 0.75° after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Thus, spinopelvic mobility is of high clinical relevance regarding the risk of implant impingement and dislocation. Our study aimed to 1) determine the proportion of OA-patients with stiff, normal or hypermobile spino-pelvic mobility and 2) to identify clinical or static standing radiographic parameters predicting spinopelvic mobility. This prospective diagnostic cohort study followed 122 consecutive patients with end-stage osteoarthritis awaiting THA. Preoperatively, the Oxford Hip Score, Oswestry Disability Index and Schober's test were assessed in a standardized clinical examination. Lateral view radiographs were taken of the lumbar spine, pelvis and proximal femur using EOS© in standing position and with femurs parallel to the floor in order to achieve a 90°-seated position. Radiographic measurements were performed for the lumbar lordosis angle (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic-femoral-angle (PFA). The difference in PT between standing and seated allowed for patient classification based on spino-pelvic mobility into stiff (±30°). From the standing to the sitting position, the pelvis tilted backwards by a mean of 19.6° (SD 11.6) and the hip was flexed by a mean of 57° (SD 17). Change in pelvic tilt correlated inversely with change in hip flexion. Spinopelvic mobility is highly variable in patients awaiting THA and we could not identify any clinical or static standing radiographic parameter predicting the change in pelvic tilt from standing to sitting position. In order to identify patients with stiff or hypermobile spinopelvic mobility, we recommend performing lateral view radiographs of the lumbar spine, pelvis and proximal femur in all patients awaiting THA. Thereafter, implants and combined cup inclination/anteversion can be individually chosen to minimize the risk of dislocation. No predictors could be identified. We recommend performing sitting and standing lateral view radiographs of the lumbar spine and pelvis to determine spinopelvic mobility in patients awaiting THA

A stiff spine leads to increased demand on the hip, creating an increased risk of total hip arthroplasty (THA) dislocation. Several authors propose that a change in sacral slope of ≤10° between the standing and relaxed-seated positions (ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated) identifies a patient with a stiff lumbar spine and have suggested use of dual-mobility bearings for such patients. However, such assessment may not adequately test the lumbar spine to draw such conclusions. The aim of this study was to assess how accurately ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated can identify patients with a stiff spine. This is a prospective, multi-centre, consecutive cohort series. Two-hundred and twenty-four patients, pre-THA, had standing, relaxed-seated and flexed-seated lateral radiographs. Sacral slope and lumbar lordosis were measured on each functional X-ray. ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated seated was determined by the change in sacral slope between the standing and relaxed-seated positions. Lumbar flexion (LF) was defined as the difference in lumbar lordotic angle between standing and flexed-seated. LF≤20° was considered a stiff spine. The predictive value of ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated for characterising a stiff spine was assessed. A weak correlation between ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated and LF was identified (r2= 0.15). Fifty-four patients (24%) had ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10° and 16 patients (7%) had a stiff spine. Of the 54 patients with ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10°, 9 had a stiff spine. The positive predictive value of ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10° for identifying a stiff spine was 17%. ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10° was not correlated with a stiff spine in this cohort. Utilising this simplified approach could lead to a six-fold overprediction of patients with a stiff lumbar spine. This, in turn, could lead to an overprediction of patients with abnormal spinopelvic mobility, unnecessary use of dual mobility bearings and incorrect targets for component alignment. Referring to patients ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10° as being stiff can be misleading; we thus recommend use of the flexed-seated position to effectively assess pre-operative spinopelvic mobility

Evaluation of patient specific spinopelvic mobility requires the detection of bony landmarks in lateral functional radiographs. Current manual landmarking methods are inefficient, and subjective. This study proposes a deep learning model to automate landmark detection and derivation of spinopelvic measurements (SPM). A deep learning model was developed using an international multicenter imaging database of 26,109 landmarked preoperative, and postoperative, lateral functional radiographs (HREC: Bellberry: 2020-08-764-A-2). Three functional positions were analysed: 1) standing, 2) contralateral step-up and 3) flexed seated. Landmarks were manually captured and independently verified by qualified engineers during pre-operative planning with additional assistance of 3D computed tomography derived landmarks. Pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and lumbar lordotic angle (LLA) were derived from the predicted landmark coordinates. Interobserver variability was explored in a pilot study, consisting of 9 qualified engineers, annotating three functional images, while blinded to additional 3D information. The dataset was subdivided into 70:20:10 for training, validation, and testing. The model produced a mean absolute error (MAE), for PT, SS, and LLA of 1.7°±3.1°, 3.4°±3.8°, 4.9°±4.5°, respectively. PT MAE values were dependent on functional position: standing 1.2°±1.3°, step 1.7°±4.0°, and seated 2.4°±3.3°, p< 0.001. The mean model prediction time was 0.7 seconds per image. The interobserver 95% confidence interval (CI) for engineer measured PT, SS and LLA (1.9°, 1.9°, 3.1°, respectively) was comparable to the MAE values generated by the model. The model MAE reported comparable performance to the gold standard when blinded to additional 3D information. LLA prediction produced the lowest SPM accuracy potentially due to error propagation from the SS and L1 landmarks. Reduced PT accuracy in step and seated functional positions may be attributed to an increased occlusion of the pubic-symphysis landmark. Our model shows excellent performance when compared against the current gold standard manual annotation process

Introduction & aims. Apparently well-orientated total hip replacements (THR) can still fail due to functional component malalignment. Previously defined “safe zones” are not appropriate for all patients as they do not consider an individual's spinopelvic mobility. The Optimized Positioning System, OPS. TM. (Corin, UK), comprises preoperative planning based on a patient-specific dynamic analysis, and patient-specific instrumentation for delivery of the target component alignment. The aim of this study was to determine the early revision rate from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) for THRs implanted using OPS. TM. . Method. Between January 4. th. 2016 and December 20. st. 2017, a consecutive series of 841 OPS. TM. cementless total hip replacements were implanted using a Trinity acetabular cup (Corin, UK) with either a TriFit TS stem (98%) or a non-collared MetaFix stem (2%). 502 (59%) procedures were performed through a posterior approach, and 355 (41%) using the direct superior approach. Mean age was 64 (range; 27 to 92) and 51% were female. At a mean follow-up of 15 months (range; 3 to 27), the complete list of 857 patients was sent to the AOANJRR for analysis. Results. There were 5 revisions: . a periprosthetic femoral fracture at 1-month post-op in a 70F. a ceramic head fracture at 12-months post-op in a 59M. a femoral stem loosening at 7-months post-op in a 58M. a femoral stem loosening at 16-months post-op in a 64M. an anterior dislocation in a 53M, that was revised 9 days after the primary procedure. CT analysis, prior to revision surgery, revealed acetabular cup orientation of 46°/31° (inclination/anteversion) and femoral stem anteversion of 38°. Conclusions. These preliminary findings suggest the OPS. TM. dynamic planning and delivery system provides good early results, with a low rate of revision for dislocation. Limitations of the study will be discussed

Introduction. Interactions between hip, pelvis and spine, as abnormal spinopelvic movements, have been associated with inferior outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Changes in pelvis position lead to a mutual change in functional cup orientation, with both pelvic tilt and rotation having a significant effect on version. Hip osteoarthritis (OA) patients have shown reduced hip kinematics which may place increased demands on the pelvis and the spine. Sagittal and coronal planes assessments are commonly done as these can be adequately studied with anteroposterior and lateral radiographs. However, abnormal pelvis rotation is likely to compromise the outcome as they have a detrimental effect on cup orientation and increased impingement risk. This study aims to determine the association between dynamic motion and radiographic sagittal assessments; and examine the association between axial and sagittal spinal and pelvic kinematics between hip OA patients and healthy controls (CTRL). Methods. This is a prospective study, IRB approved. Twenty hip OA pre-THA patients (11F/9M, 67±9 years) and six CTRL (3F/3M, 46±18 years) underwent lateral spinopelvic radiographs in standing and seated bend-and-reach (SBR) positions. Pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic-femoral-angle (PFA) and lumbar lordosis (LL) angles were measured in both positions and the differences (Δ) between standing and SBR were calculated. Dynamic SBR and seated maximal-trunk-rotation (STR) were recorded in the biomechanics laboratory using a 10-infrared camera and processed on a motion capture system (Vicon, UK). Direct kinematics extracted maximal pelvic tilt (PT. max. ), hip flexion (HF. max. ) and (mid-thoracic to lumbar) spinal flexion (SF. max. ). The SBR pelvic movement contribution (ΔPT. rel. ) was calculated as ΔPT/(ΔPT+ΔPFA)∗100 for the radiographic analysis and as PT. max. /(PT. max. +HF. max. ) for the motion analyses. Axial and sagittal, pelvic and spinal range of motion (ROM) were calculated for STR and SBR, respectively. Spearman's rank-order determined correlations between the spinopelvic radiographs and sagittal kinematics, and the sagittal/axial kinematics. Mann-Whitney U-tests compared measures between groups. Results. Radiograph readings correlated with sagittal kinematics during SBR for ΔPT and PT. max. (ρ=0.64, p<0.001), ΔPFA and HF. max. (ρ=0.44, p<0.0002), and ΔLL and SF. max. (ρ=0.34, p=0.002). Relative pelvic movements (ΔPT. rel. ) were not different between radiographic (11%±21) and biomechanical (15%±29) readings (p=0.9). Sagittal SRB spinal flexion correlated with the axial STR rotation (ρ=0.43, p<0.0001). Although not seen in CTRL, sagittal SRB pelvic flexion strongly correlated with STR pelvic rotation in OA patients (ρ=0.40, p=0.002). All spinopelvic parameters were different between the patients with OA and CTRL. CTRLs exhibited significantly greater mobility and less variability in all 3 segments (spine, pelvis, hip) and both planes (axial and sagittal) (Table 1). Conclusion. Correlation between sagittal kinematics and radiographical measurements during SBR validates the spinopelvic mobility assessments in the biomechanics laboratory. Axial kinematics of both pelvis and spine correlated significantly in OA patients, suggesting that patients with abnormal sagittal mobility are likely to also exhibit abnormal axial mobility, which can further potentiate any at-risk kinematics. Significantly lower OA ROM must be investigated post-THA. Pre-THA variability of both sagittal and axial movements indicates that both planes must be considered ahead of surgical planning with navigation and/or robotics. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly