Aims

Precise implant positioning, tailored to individual spinopelvic biomechanics and phenotype, is paramount for stability in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Despite a few studies on instability prediction, there is a notable gap in research utilizing artificial intelligence (AI). The objective of our pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of developing an AI algorithm tailored to individual spinopelvic mechanics and patient phenotype for predicting impingement.

Aims. Spinopelvic pathology increases the risk for instability following total hip arthroplasty (THA), yet few studies have evaluated how pathology varies with age or sex. The aims of this study were: 1) to report differences in spinopelvic parameters with advancing age and between the sexes; and 2) to determine variation in the prevalence of THA instability risk factors with advancing age. Methods. A multicentre database with preoperative imaging for 15,830 THA patients was reviewed. Spinopelvic parameter measurements were made by experienced engineers, including anterior pelvic plane tilt (APPT), spinopelvic tilt (SPT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence (PI). Lumbar flexion (LF), sagittal spinal deformity, and hip user index (HUI) were calculated using parameter measurements. Results. With advancing age, patients demonstrate increased posterior APPT, decreased standing LL, decreased LF, higher pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch, higher prevalence of abnormal spinopelvic mobility, and higher HUI percentage. With each decade, APPT progressed posteriorly 2.1°, LF declined 6.0°, PI-LL mismatch increased 2.9°, and spinopelvic mobility increased 3.8°. Significant differences were found between the sexes for APPT, SPT, SS, LL, and LF, but were not felt to be clinically relevant. Conclusion. With advancing age, spinopelvic biomechanics demonstrate decreased spinal mobility and increased pelvic/hip mobility. Surgeons should consider the higher prevalence of instability risk factors in elderly patients and anticipate changes evolving in spinopelvic biomechanics for young patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):792–801

Aims. Achieving accurate implant positioning and restoring native hip biomechanics are key surgeon-controlled technical objectives in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare the reproducibility of the planned preoperative centre of hip rotation (COR) in patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted THA versus conventional THA. Methods. This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 60 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA). Patients in both arms underwent pre- and postoperative CT scans, and a patient-specific plan was created using the robotic software. The COR, combined offset, acetabular orientation, and leg length discrepancy were measured on the pre- and postoperative CT scanogram at six weeks following surgery. Results. There were no significant differences for any of the baseline characteristics including spinopelvic mobility. The absolute error for achieving the planned horizontal COR was median 1.4 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.87 to 3.42) in RO THA versus 4.3 mm (IQR 3 to 6.8; p < 0.001); vertical COR mean 0.91 mm (SD 0.73) in RO THA versus 2.3 mm (SD 1.3; p < 0.001); and combined offset median 2 mm (IQR 0.97 to 5.45) in RO THA versus 3.9 mm (IQR 2 to 7.9; p = 0.019). Improved accuracy was observed with RO THA in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning (root mean square error for anteversion and inclination was 2.6 and 1.3 vs 8.9 and 5.3, repectively) and leg length (mean 0.6 mm vs 1.4 mm; p < 0.001). Patient-reported outcome measures were comparable between the two groups at baseline and one year. Participants in the RO THA group needed fewer physiotherapy sessions postoperatively (median six (IQR 4.5 to 8) vs eight (IQR 6 to 11; p = 0.005). Conclusion. This RCT suggested that robotic-arm assistance in THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native COR, better preservation of the combined offset, leg length correction, and superior accuracy in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning. Further evaluation through long-term and registry data is necessary to assess whether these findings translate into improved implant survival and functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):324–335

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

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

Pelvic tilt is believed to affect the symptomology of osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip by alterations in joint movement, dysplasia of the hip by modification of acetabular cover, and femoroacetabular impingement by influencing the impingement-free range of motion. While the apparent role of pelvic tilt in hip pathology has been reported, the exact effects of many forms of treatment on pelvic tilt are unknown. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of surgery on pelvic tilt in these three groups of patients.

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

Aims. Navigation devices are designed to improve a surgeon’s accuracy in positioning the acetabular and femoral components in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to both evaluate the accuracy of an optical computer-assisted surgery (CAS) navigation system and determine whether preoperative spinopelvic mobility (categorized as hypermobile, normal, or stiff) increased the risk of acetabular component placement error. Methods. A total of 356 patients undergoing primary THA were prospectively enrolled from November 2016 to March 2018. Clinically relevant error using the CAS system was defined as a difference of > 5° between CAS and 3D radiological reconstruction measurements for acetabular component inclination and anteversion. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine whether hypermobile (. Δ. sacral slope(SS). stand-sit. > 30°), or stiff (. ∆. SS. stand-sit. < 10°) spinopelvic mobility contributed to increased error rates. Results. The paired absolute difference between CAS and postoperative imaging measurements was 2.3° (standard deviation (SD) 2.6°) for inclination and 3.1° (SD 4.2°) for anteversion. Using a target zone of 40° (± 10°) (inclination) and 20° (± 10°) (anteversion), postoperative standing radiographs measured 96% of acetabular components within the target zone for both inclination and anteversion. Multiple logistic regression analysis controlling for BMI and sex revealed that hypermobile spinopelvic mobility significantly increased error rates for anteversion (odds ratio (OR) 2.48, p = 0.009) and inclination (OR 2.44, p = 0.016), whereas stiff spinopelvic mobility increased error rates for anteversion (OR 1.97, p = 0.028). There were no dislocations at a minimum three-year follow-up. Conclusion. Despite high reliability in acetabular positioning for inclination in a large patient cohort using an optical CAS system, hypermobile and stiff spinopelvic mobility significantly increased the risk of clinically relevant errors. In patients with abnormal spinopelvic mobility, CAS systems should be adjusted for use to avoid acetabular component misalignment and subsequent risk for long-term dislocation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):475–484

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of liner malseating in two commonly used dual-mobility (DM) designs. Secondary aims included determining the risk of dislocation, survival, and clinical outcomes.

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.

Aims. Spinopelvic mobility plays an important role in functional acetabular component position following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary aim of this study was to determine if spinopelvic hypermobility persists or resolves following THA. Our second aim was to identify patient demographic or radiological factors associated with hypermobility and resolution of hypermobility after THA. Methods. This study investigated patients with preoperative posterior hypermobility, defined as a change in sacral slope (SS) from standing to sitting (ΔSS. stand-sit. ) ≥ 30°. Radiological spinopelvic parameters, including SS, pelvic incidence (PI), lumbar lordosis (LL), PI-LL mismatch, anterior pelvic plane tilt (APPt), and spinopelvic tilt (SPT), were measured on preoperative imaging, and at six weeks and a minimum of one year postoperatively. The severity of bilateral hip osteoarthritis (OA) was graded using Kellgren-Lawrence criteria. Results. A total of 136 patients were identified as having preoperative spinopelvic hypermobility. At one year after THA, 95% (129/136) of patients were no longer categorized as hypermobile on standing and sitting radiographs (ΔSS. stand-sit. < 30°). Mean ΔSS. stand-sit. decreased from 36.4° (SD 5.1°) at baseline to 21.4° (SD 6.6°) at one year (p < 0.001). Mean SS. seated. increased from baseline (11.4° (SD 8.8°)) to one year after THA by 11.5° (SD 7.4°) (p < 0.001), which correlates to an 8.5° (SD 5.5°) mean decrease in seated functional cup anteversion. Contralateral hip OA was the only radiological predictor of hypermobility persisting at one year after surgery. The overall reoperation rate was 1.5%. Conclusion. Spinopelvic hypermobility was found to resolve in the majority (95%) of patients one year after THA. The increase in SS. seated. was clinically significant, suggesting that current target recommendations for the hypermobile patient (decreased anteversion and inclination) should be revisited. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1766–1773

Aims

Pelvic tilt (PT) can significantly change the functional orientation of the acetabular component and may differ markedly between patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients with stiff spines who have little change in PT are considered at high risk for instability following THA. Femoral component position also contributes to the limits of impingement-free range of motion (ROM), but has been less studied. Little is known about the impact of combined anteversion on risk of impingement with changing pelvic position.

Aims

The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of asymmetric crosslinked polyethylene liner use on the risk of revision of cementless and hybrid total hip arthroplasties (THAs).

Aims

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.

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

Aims. The complex relationship between acetabular component position and spinopelvic mobility in patients following total hip arthroplasty (THA) renders it difficult to optimize acetabular component positioning. Mobility of the normal lumbar spine during postural changes results in alterations in pelvic tilt (PT) to maintain the sagittal balance in each posture and, as a consequence, markedly changes the functional component anteversion (FCA). This study aimed to investigate the in vivo association of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) with the PT angle and with FCA during postural changes in THA patients. Methods. A total of 50 patients with unilateral THA underwent CT imaging for radiological evaluation of presence and severity of lumbar DDD. In all, 18 patients with lumbar DDD were compared to 32 patients without lumbar DDD. In vivo PT and FCA, and the magnitudes of changes (ΔPT; ΔFCA) during supine, standing, swing-phase, and stance-phase positions were measured using a validated dual fluoroscopic imaging system. Results. PT, FCA, ΔPT, and ΔFCA were significantly correlated with the severity of lumbar DDD. Patients with severe lumbar DDD showed marked differences in PT with changes in posture; there was an anterior tilt (-16.6° vs -12.3°, p = 0.047) in the supine position, but a posterior tilt in an upright posture (1.0° vs -3.6°, p = 0.005). A significant decrease in ΔFCA during stand-to-swing (8.6° vs 12.8°, p = 0.038) and stand-to-stance (7.3° vs 10.6°,p = 0.042) was observed in the severe lumbar DDD group. Conclusion. There were marked differences in the relationship between PT and posture in patients with severe lumbar DDD compared with healthy controls. Clinical decision-making should consider the relationship between PT and FCA in order to reduce the risk of impingement at large ranges of motion in THA patients with lumbar DDD. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1505–1510

Aims. Patients with abnormal spinopelvic mobility are at increased risk for instability. Measuring the change in sacral slope (ΔSS) can help determine spinopelvic mobility preoperatively. Sacral slope (SS) should decrease at least 10° to demonstrate adequate posterior pelvic tilt. There is potential for different ΔSS measurements in the same patient based on sitting posture. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of sitting posture on the ΔSS in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. In total, 51 patients undergoing THA were reviewed to quantify the variability in preoperative spinopelvic mobility when measuring two different sitting positions using SS for planning. Results. A total of 32 patients had standardized relaxed sitting radiographs, while 35 patients had standardized flexed sitting images. Of the 32 patients with relaxed sitting views, the mean ΔSS was 20.7° (SD 8.9°). No patients exhibited an increase in SS during relaxed sitting (i.e. anterior pelvic tilt or so-called reverse accommodation). Of the 35 patients with flexed sitting radiographs, the mean ΔSS was only 2.1° (SD 9.7°) with 16/35 (45.71%) showing anterior pelvic tilt, or so-called reverse accommodation, unexpectedly increasing the sitting SS compared to the standing SS. Overall, 18 patients had both relaxed sitting and flexed sitting radiographs. In patients with both types of sitting radiographs, the mean relaxed sit to stand ΔSS was 18.06° (SD 6.07°), while only a 3.00° (SD 10.53°) ΔSS was noted when flexed sitting. There was a mean ΔSS difference of 15.06° (SD 7.67°) noted in the same patient cohort depending on sitting posture (p < 0.001). Conclusion. A 15° mean difference was noted depending on the sitting posture of the patient. Since decisions on component position can be made on preoperative lateral sit-stand radiographs, postural standardization is crucial. If using ΔSS for preoperative planning, the relaxed sitting radiograph is preferred. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):41–46

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

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. Concurrent hip and spine pathologies can alter the biomechanics of spinopelvic mobility in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study examines how differences in pelvic orientation of patients with spine fusions can increase the risk of dislocation risk after THA. Patients and Methods. We identified 84 patients (97 THAs) between 1998 and 2015 who had undergone spinal fusion prior to primary THA. Patients were stratified into three groups depending on the length of lumbar fusion and whether or not the sacrum was involved. Mean age was 71 years (40 to 87) and 54 patients (56%) were female. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 30 kg/m. 2. (19 to 45). Mean follow-up was six years (2 to 17). Patients were 1:2 matched to patients with primary THAs without spine fusion. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated. Results. Dislocation in the fusion group was 5.2% at one year versus 1.7% in controls but this did not reach statistical significance (HR 1.9; p = 0.33). Compared with controls, there was no significant difference in rate of dislocation in patients without a sacral fusion. When the sacrum was involved, the rate of dislocation was significantly higher than in controls (HR 4.5; p = 0.03), with a trend to more dislocations in longer lumbosacral fusions. Patient demographics and surgical characteristics of THA (i.e. surgical approach and femoral head diameter) did not significantly impact risk of dislocation (p > 0.05). Significant radiological differences were measured in mean anterior pelvic tilt between the one-level lumbar fusion group (22°), the multiple-level fusion group (27°), and the sacral fusion group (32°; p < 0.01). Ten-year survival was 93% in the fusion group and 95% in controls (HR 1.2; p = 0.8). Conclusion. Lumbosacral spinal fusions prior to THA increase the risk of dislocation within the first six months. Fusions involving the sacrum with multiple levels of lumbar involvement notably increased the risk of postoperative dislocation compared with a control group and other lumbar fusions. Surgeons should take care with component positioning and may consider higher stability implants in this high-risk cohort