Abstract
Introduction
Hip osteoarthritis (OA) results in reduced hip range of motion and contracture, affecting sitting and standing posture. Spinal pathology such as fusion or deformity may alter the ability to compensate for reduced joint mobility in sitting and standing postures. The effects of postural spinal alignment change between sitting and standing is not well understood.
Methods
A retrospective radiographic review was performed at a single academic institution of patients with sitting and standing full-body radiographs between 2012 and 2017. Patients were excluded if they had transitional lumbosacral anatomy, prior spinal fusion or hip prosthesis. Hip OA severity was graded by the Kellgren-Lawrence grades and divided into two groups: low-grade OA (LOA; grade 0–2) and severe OA (SOA; grade 3–4). Spinopelvic parameters (Pelvic Incidence (PI), Pelvic Tilt (PT), Lumbar Lordosis (LL), and PI-LL), Thoracic Kyphosis (TK; T4-T12), Global spinal alignment (SVA and T1-Pelvic Angle; TPA; T10-L2) as well as proximal femoral shaft angle (PFSA: as measured from the vertical), and hip flexion (difference between change in PT and change in PFSA) were also measured. Changes in sit-stand radiographic parameters were compared between the LOA and SOA groups with unpaired t-test.
Results
548 patients were identified with sit-stand radiographs, of which there were 311 patients with LOA & 237 with SOA. After propensity score matching for Age, BMI, and PI, 183 LOA & 183 SOA patients were analyzed.
Standing alignment analysis demonstrated that SOA patients had greater SVA (31.1 ± 36.68 vs 21.7 ± 38.83, p=0.02), and lower TK (−36.21 ± 11.98 vs −41.09 ± 11.47, p<0.001). SOA patients had lower PT, greater PI-LL, lower LL, lower T10-L2, and lower TPA (p>0.05). PFSA (9.09 5.19 vs 7.41 4.48, p<0.001) was significantly different compared to LOA while SOA KA was not significantly different compared to LOA.
Sitting alignment analysis demonstrated that SOA patients had higher PT (29.69 ± 15.65 vs 23.32 ± 12.12, p<0.001), higher PI-LL (21.64 ±17.86 vs 12.44 ±14.84 p<0.001), lower LL (31.67 ± 16.40 vs 41.58 ± 14.73, p<0.001), lower TK (−33.22 ± 15.76 vs −38.57 ± 13.01, p=0.01), greater TPA (27.91 ± 14.7 vs 22.55 ± 11.38 p=0.01). TK, SVA, and PFSA were not significantly different compared to LOA
SOA and LOA groups demonstrated differences in standing and sitting spinopelvic alignment for all global and regional parameters except PI. When examining the postural changes from standing to sitting, there was less hip ROM in SOA than LOA (71.45 ± 18.55 vs 81.64 ± 12.57, p<0.001). As a result, SOA patients had more change in PT (15.24 ± 16.32 vs 7.28 ± 10.19, p<0.001), PI-LL (20.62 ± 17.25 vs 13.74 ± 11.16, p<0.001), LL (−21.37 ± 15.55 vs −13.09 ± 12.34, p<0.001), and T10-L2 (−4.94 ± 7.45 vs −1.08 ± 5.19, p<0.001) to compensate. SOA had a greater improvement in TPA (15.06 vs 9.59, p<0.001), and less change in PFSA (86.65 vs 88.81, p<0.001) compared to LOA
Conclusions
Spinopelvic compensatory mechanisms are adapted for reduced joint mobility associated with hip OA in standing and sitting.
