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. 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

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

There remains confusion in the literature with regard to the spinopelvic relationship, and its contribution to ideal acetabular component position. Critical assessment of the literature has been limited by use of conflicting terminology and definitions of new concepts that further confuse the topic. In 2017, the concept of a Hip-Spine Workgroup was created with the first meeting held at the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Annual Meeting in 2018. The goal of this workgroup was to first help standardize terminology across the literature so that as a topic, multiple groups could produce literature that is immediately understandable and applicable. This consensus review from the Hip-Spine Workgroup aims to simplify the spinopelvic relationship, offer hip surgeons a concise summary of available literature, and select common terminology approved by both hip surgeons and spine surgeons for future research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:808–816

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).

Objectives

Sagittal alignment of the lumbosacral spine, and specifically pelvic incidence (PI), has been implicated in the development of spine pathology, but generally ignored with regards to diseases of the hip. We aimed to determine if increased PI is correlated with higher rates of hip osteoarthritis (HOA). The effect of PI on the development of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) was used as a negative control.