Aims. The aims of this study were to describe the prevalence of previous
lumbar surgery in patients who undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA)
and to investigate their patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) one year
post-operatively. Patients and Methods. Data from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register and the Swedish
Spine Register gathered from 2002 to 2013 were merged to identify
a group of patients who had undergone lumbar surgery before THA
(n = 997) and a carefully matched one-to-one control group. We investigated
differences in the one-year post-operative PROMs between the groups.
Linear regression analyses were used to explore the associations
between previous lumbar surgery and these PROMs following THA. The
prevalence of prior lumbar surgery was calculated as the ratio of
patients identified with previous lumbar surgery between 2002 and
2012, and divided by the total number of patients who underwent
a THA in 2012. Results. The prevalence of lumbar surgery prior to THA in 2012 was 3.5%
(351 of 10 082). Linear regression analyses showed an association
with more pain (B = 4.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.57 to 6.12),
worse EuroQol (EQ)-5D index, (B = -0.089, 95% CI -0.112 to -0.066),
worse EQ VAS (B = -6.75, 95% CI -8.58 to -4.92), and less satisfaction
(B = 6.04, 95% CI 4.05 to 8.02). Conclusion.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of a patient-specific algorithm which we developed for predicting changes in sagittal pelvic tilt after total hip arthroplasty (THA). This retrospective study included 143 patients who underwent 171 THAs between April 2019 and October 2020 and had full-body lateral radiographs preoperatively and at one year postoperatively. We measured the pelvic incidence (PI), the sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic tilt, sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), and thoracic kyphosis to classify patients into types A, B1, B2, B3, and C. The change of pelvic tilt was predicted according to the normal range of SVA (0 mm to 50 mm) for types A, B1, B2, and B3, and based on the absolute value of one-third of the PI-LL mismatch for type C patients. The reliability of the classification of the patients and the prediction of the change of pelvic tilt were assessed using kappa values and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), respectively. Validity was assessed using the overall mean error and mean absolute error (MAE) for the prediction of the change of pelvic tilt.Aims
Methods
Patients with spinal pathology who undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA) have an increased risk of dislocation and revision. The aim of this study was to determine if the use of the Hip-Spine Classification system in these patients would result in a decreased rate of postoperative dislocation in patients with spinal pathology. This prospective, multicentre study evaluated 3,777 consecutive patients undergoing THA by three surgeons, between January 2014 and December 2019. They were categorized using The Hip-Spine Classification system: group 1 with normal spinal alignment; group 2 with a flatback deformity, group 2A with normal spinal mobility, and group 2B with a stiff spine. Flatback deformity was defined by a pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis of > 10°, and spinal stiffness was defined by < 10° change in sacral slope from standing to seated. Each category determined a patient-specific component positioning. Survivorship free of dislocation was recorded and spinopelvic measurements were compared for reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient.Aims
Methods
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. 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.Aims
Materials and Methods
The interaction between the lumbosacral spine
and the pelvis is dynamically related to positional change, and
may be complicated by co-existing pathology. This review summarises
the current literature examining the effect of sagittal spinal deformity
on pelvic and acetabular orientation during total hip arthroplasty
(THA) and provides recommendations to aid in placement of the acetabular
component for patients with co-existing spinal pathology or long
spinal fusions. Pre-operatively, patients can be divided into four
categories based on the flexibility and sagittal balance of the
spine. Using this information as a guide, placement of the acetabular
component can be optimal based on the type and significance of co-existing
spinal deformity. Cite this article:
