header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

PELVIS AND SPINE RELATIONSHIPS: WHAT EVERY HIP SURGEON SHOULD KNOW

The Current Concepts in Joint Replacement (CCJR) Spring 2018 Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 20–23 May 2018.



Abstract

Postoperative dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a significant concern with a reported incidence of 1% to 10%. The risk of dislocation is multifactorial and includes both surgeon-related (i.e. implant position, component size, surgical approach) and patient-related factors (i.e. gender, age, preoperative diagnosis, neurologic disorders). While the majority of prior investigations have focused on the importance of acetabular component positioning, recent studies have shown that approximately 60% of “dislocators” following primary THA have an acceptably aligned acetabular component. Therefore, the importance of the relationship between the spine and pelvis, and its impact on functional component position has gained increased attention.

Kanawade and Dorr et al. have shown patients can be categorised into having a stiff, normal, or hypermobile pelvis based on their change in pelvic tilt when moving from the standing to seated position. The degree of change in functional position of both the acetabular and femoral components is impacted by the degree of pelvic motion each patient possesses. In the “normal” pelvis, as a patient moves from the standing to seated position the pelvis typically tilts posteriorly, thus increasing the functional anteversion of the acetabular component. However, patients with lumbar degeneration or spine pathology often have a decrease in posterior pelvic tilt in the seated position, thus potentially increasing their risk of dislocation. Bedard et al. noted an 8.3% dislocation risk in patients with a spinopelvic fusion after THA vs. 2.9% in those without.

There is the potential that preoperative, dynamic imaging can be used to predict the ideal component position for each individual patient undergoing THA. However, this assumes that a patient's preoperative pelvic motion will be the same following implantation of a total hip prosthesis, and that a patient's pelvic motion will remain consistent over time postoperatively. A recent study has shown that the impact of THA on pelvic motion can be highly variable, thus potentially limiting the utility of preoperative dynamic imaging in predicting a patient's ideal component position. Future investigations must focus on preoperative factors that can be used to predict postoperative pelvic motion and how pelvic motion changes over time following implantation of a total hip arthroplasty.