Sacral Slope Change From Standing to Relaxed-Seated Grossly Overpredicts the Presence of a Stiff Spine.

BACKGROUND: 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 has suggested the use of dual-mobility bearings for such patients undergoing a total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to assess how accurately ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated can identify patients with a stiff spine. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, consecutive cohort series of 312 patients had standing, relaxed-seated, and flexed-seated lateral radiographs prior to THA. ΔSSstanding→relaxed-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 characterizing a stiff spine was assessed. RESULTS: A weak correlation between ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated and LF was identified (r2 = 0.13). Eighty six patients (28%) had ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10° and 19 patients (6%) had a stiff spine. Of the 86 patients with ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10°, 13 had a stiff spine. The positive predictive value of ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10° for identifying a stiff spine was 15%. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10° was not correlated with a stiff spine. Using this simplified approach could lead to a 7-fold overprediction of patients with a stiff lumbar spine and abnormal spinopelvic mobility, unnecessary use of dual-mobility bearings, and incorrect component alignment targets. Referring to patients with ΔSSstanding→relaxed-seated ≤10° as being stiff is misleading. The flexed-seated position should be used to effectively assess a patient's spine mobility prior to THA.

High Prevalence of Spinopelvic Risk Factors in Patients With Post-Operative Hip Dislocations.

BACKGROUND: Excessive standing posterior pelvic tilt (PT), lumbar spine stiffness, low pelvic incidence (PI), and severe sagittal spinal deformity (SSD) have been linked to increased dislocation rates. We aimed to determine the prevalence of these 4 parameters in a cohort of unstable total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients and compare these to a large representative control population of primary THA patients. METHODS: Forty-eight patients with instability following primary THA were compared to a control cohort of 9414 THA patients. Lateral X-rays in standing and flexed-seated positions were used to assess PT and lumbar lordosis (LL). Computed tomography scans were used to measure PI and acetabular cup orientation. Thresholds for "at risk" spinopelvic parameters were standing posterior PT ≤ -15°, lumbar flexion (LLstand-LLseated) ≤ 20°, PI ≤ 41°, PI ≥ 70°, and SSD (PI-LLstand mismatch ≥ 20°). RESULTS: There were significant differences in mean spinopelvic parameters between the dislocating and control cohorts (P < .001). There were no differences in mean PI (58° versus 56°, respectively, P = .29) or prevalence of high and low PI between groups. 67% of the dislocating patients had one or more significant risk factors, compared to only 11% of the control. A total of 71% of the dislocating patients had cup orientations within the traditional safe zone. CONCLUSION: Excessive standing posterior PT, low lumbar flexion, and a severe SSD are more prevalent in unstable THAs. Pre-op screening for these parameters combined with appropriate planning and implant selection may help identify at risk patients and reduce the prevalence of dislocation.

Prevalence of Risk Factors for Adverse Spinopelvic Mobility Among Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Patients with adverse spinopelvic mobility have higher complication rates following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Risk factors include a stiff lumbar spine, standing posterior pelvic tilt ≤ -10°, and a severe sagittal spinal deformity (pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch ≥20°). The purpose of this study is to define the spinopelvic risk factors and quantify the prevalence of risk factors for pathologic spinopelvic mobility. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis from January 2014 to February 2020 was performed on a multicenter series of 9414 primary THAs by 168 surgeons, all with preoperative spinopelvic measurements in the supine, standing, and flex-seated positions. All patients were included. The prevalence of adverse spinopelvic mobility and frequency of each spinopelvic risk factor was calculated. RESULTS: The cohort was 52% female, 48% male, with an average age of 65 years. Thirteen percent of patients exhibited adverse spinopelvic mobility and 17% had one or more of the 3 risk factors. Adverse mobility was found in 35% of patients with at least 1 risk factor, 47% with at least 2 risk factors, and 57% with all 3 risk factors. CONCLUSION: Forty-six percent of patients had spinopelvic pathology driven by one or more of the risk factors. Number of risk factors present and risk of adverse spinopelvic mobility were positively correlated, with 57% of patients with all 3 risk factors exhibiting adverse spinopelvic mobility. Although this study defines the prevalence of these risk factors in this highly selected cohort, it does not report incidence in a general THA population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV.

Does Prosthetic or Bony Impingement Occur More Often in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Dynamic Preoperative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Impingement is a leading cause for instability resulting in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Impingement can be prosthetic, bony, or soft tissue. The purpose of this study is to investigate, using a virtual simulation, whether bony or prosthetic impingement presents first in well-positioned THAs. METHODS: Twenty-three patients requiring THA were planned for a ceramic-on-poly cementless construct using dynamic planning software. Cups were orientated at 45° inclination and 25° anteversion when standing. Femoral components and neck lengths were positioned to reproduce native anteversion and match contralateral leg length and offset. The type and location of impingement was then recorded with recreation of anterior and posterior impingement during standard and extreme ranges of motion (ROM). RESULTS: In standard ROM, flexion produced both prosthetic and bony impingement and extension resulted in prosthetic impingement in models with lipped liners. In extreme ROM, anterior impingement was 78% bony in 32-mm articulations, and 88% bony in 36-mm articulations. Posterior impingement was 65% prosthetic in 32-mm articulations, and 55% prosthetic in 36-mm articulations. Dual mobility cups showed the greatest risk of posterior prosthetic impingement in hyperextension (74%). CONCLUSION: In standard ROM, both bony and prosthetic impingement occurred in flexion, while prosthetic impingement occurred in extension in models with lipped liners. In hyperextension, prosthetic impingement was more common than bony impingement, and was exclusively the cause of impingement when a lip was used. In flexion, impingement was primarily bony with the use of a 36-mm head. The risk of posterior prosthetic impingement was greatest with dual mobility cups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.