Aims. The aim of this study was to review the current evidence surrounding curve type and morphology on curve progression risk in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Methods. A comprehensive search was conducted by two independent reviewers on PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Web of Science to obtain all published information on morphological predictors of AIS progression. Search items included ‘adolescent idiopathic scoliosis’, ‘progression’, and ‘imaging’. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were carefully defined. Risk of bias of studies was assessed with the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool, and level of evidence for each predictor was rated with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. In all, 6,286 publications were identified with 3,598 being subjected to secondary scrutiny. Ultimately, 26 publications (25 datasets) were included in this review. Results. For unbraced patients, high and moderate evidence was found for Cobb angle and curve type as predictors, respectively. Initial Cobb angle > 25° and thoracic curves were predictive of curve progression. For braced patients, flexibility < 28% and limited in-brace correction were factors predictive of progression with high and moderate evidence, respectively. Thoracic curves, high apical vertebral rotation, large rib vertebra angle difference, small rib vertebra angle on the convex side, and low pelvic tilt had weak evidence as predictors of curve progression. Conclusion. For curve progression, strong and consistent evidence is found for Cobb angle, curve type, flexibility, and correction rate. Cobb angle > 25° and flexibility < 28% are found to be important thresholds to guide clinical prognostication. Despite the low evidence, apical vertebral rotation, rib morphology, and pelvic tilt may be promising factors. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):424–432

Aims. Spinopelvic characteristics influence the hip’s biomechanical behaviour. However, to date there is little knowledge defining what ‘normal’ spinopelvic characteristics are. This study aims to determine how static spinopelvic characteristics change with age and ethnicity among asymptomatic, healthy individuals. Methods. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify English studies, including ≥ 18-year-old participants, without evidence of hip or spine pathology or a history of previous surgery or interventional treatment, documenting lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), and pelvic incidence (PI). From a total of 2,543 articles retrieved after the initial database search, 61 articles were eventually selected for data extraction. Results. When all ethnicities were combined the mean values for LL, SS, PT, and PI were: 47.4° (SD 11.0°), 35.8° (SD 7.8°), 14.0° (SD 7.2°), and 48.8° (SD 10°), respectively. LL, SS, and PT had statistically significant (p < 0.001) changes per decade at: −1.5° (SD 0.3°), −1.3° (SD 0.3°), and 1.4° (SD 0.1°). Asian populations had the largest age-dependent change in LL, SS, and PT compared to any other ethnicity per decade at: −1.3° (SD 0.3°) to −0.5° (SD 1.3°), –1.2° (SD 0.2°) to −0.3° (SD 0.3°), and 1.7° (SD 0.2°) versus 1.1° (SD 0.1°), respectively. Conclusion. Ageing alters the orientation between the spine and pelvis, causing LL, SS, and PT to modify their orientations in a compensatory mechanism to maintain sagittal alignment for balance when standing. Asian populations have the largest degree of age-dependent change to their spinopelvic parameters compared to any other ethnicity, likely due to their lower PI. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(4):231–244

Aims

Research on hip biomechanics has analyzed femoroacetabular contact pressures and forces in distinct hip conditions, with different procedures, and used diverse loading and testing conditions. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarize the available evidence in the literature for hip contact pressures and force in cadaver and in vivo studies, and how joint loading, labral status, and femoral and acetabular morphology can affect these biomechanical parameters.