Abstract
Introduction
Interactions between hip, pelvis and spine, as abnormal spinopelvic movements, have been associated with inferior outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Changes in pelvis position lead to a mutual change in functional cup orientation, with both pelvic tilt and rotation having a significant effect on version. Hip osteoarthritis (OA) patients have shown reduced hip kinematics which may place increased demands on the pelvis and the spine.
Sagittal and coronal planes assessments are commonly done as these can be adequately studied with anteroposterior and lateral radiographs. However, abnormal pelvis rotation is likely to compromise the outcome as they have a detrimental effect on cup orientation and increased impingement risk. This study aims to determine the association between dynamic motion and radiographic sagittal assessments; and examine the association between axial and sagittal spinal and pelvic kinematics between hip OA patients and healthy controls (CTRL).
Methods
This is a prospective study, IRB approved. Twenty hip OA pre-THA patients (11F/9M, 67±9 years) and six CTRL (3F/3M, 46±18 years) underwent lateral spinopelvic radiographs in standing and seated bend-and-reach (SBR) positions. Pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic-femoral-angle (PFA) and lumbar lordosis (LL) angles were measured in both positions and the differences (Δ) between standing and SBR were calculated. Dynamic SBR and seated maximal-trunk-rotation (STR) were recorded in the biomechanics laboratory using a 10-infrared camera and processed on a motion capture system (Vicon, UK). Direct kinematics extracted maximal pelvic tilt (PTmax), hip flexion (HFmax) and (mid-thoracic to lumbar) spinal flexion (SFmax). The SBR pelvic movement contribution (ΔPTrel) was calculated as ΔPT/(ΔPT+ΔPFA)∗100 for the radiographic analysis and as PTmax/(PTmax+HFmax) for the motion analyses. Axial and sagittal, pelvic and spinal range of motion (ROM) were calculated for STR and SBR, respectively. Spearman's rank-order determined correlations between the spinopelvic radiographs and sagittal kinematics, and the sagittal/axial kinematics. Mann-Whitney U-tests compared measures between groups.
Results
Radiograph readings correlated with sagittal kinematics during SBR for ΔPT and PTmax (ρ=0.64, p<0.001), ΔPFA and HFmax (ρ=0.44, p<0.0002), and ΔLL and SFmax (ρ=0.34, p=0.002). Relative pelvic movements (ΔPTrel) were not different between radiographic (11%±21) and biomechanical (15%±29) readings (p=0.9). Sagittal SRB spinal flexion correlated with the axial STR rotation (ρ=0.43, p<0.0001). Although not seen in CTRL, sagittal SRB pelvic flexion strongly correlated with STR pelvic rotation in OA patients (ρ=0.40, p=0.002). All spinopelvic parameters were different between the patients with OA and CTRL. CTRLs exhibited significantly greater mobility and less variability in all 3 segments (spine, pelvis, hip) and both planes (axial and sagittal) (Table 1).
Conclusion
Correlation between sagittal kinematics and radiographical measurements during SBR validates the spinopelvic mobility assessments in the biomechanics laboratory. Axial kinematics of both pelvis and spine correlated significantly in OA patients, suggesting that patients with abnormal sagittal mobility are likely to also exhibit abnormal axial mobility, which can further potentiate any at-risk kinematics. Significantly lower OA ROM must be investigated post-THA. Pre-THA variability of both sagittal and axial movements indicates that both planes must be considered ahead of surgical planning with navigation and/or robotics.
For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.
