The prevalence of the various patterns of spinopelvic abnormalities that increase the risk for prosthetic impingement is unknown. While prior surgery or lumbar fusion are recognized as a risk factors for postoperative dislocation, many patients presenting for THA do not have obvious radiographic abnormalities. The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of large posterior pelvic tilt (PPT) when standing, stiff lumbar-spine (SLL) and spino-pelvic sagittal imbalance (SSI) in patients undergoing primary THA. A consecutive series of 1592 patients (56% female) over 2 years underwent functional analysis of spinopelvic mobility using CT, standing, and flexed seated lateral radiographs as part of pre-operative THA planning. The average age was 65 (20–93). We investigated the prevalence of these 3 validated spinopelvic parameters known to increase the risk for impingent and correlated them to the patient's age and gender using Chi squared analysis. Finally, the risk of flexion and extension impingement was modeled for each patient at a default supine cup orientation (DSCO) of 40°/20° (±5°).Introduction
Methods
The functional pelvic tilt when standing and sitting forward of 7402 cases on the OPS, Optimized Ortho, Australia Data Base were reviewed. All patients had undergone lateral radiographs when standing simulating extension of the hip, and sitting forward when the hip is near full flexion. Pelvic tilt was measured as the angle of the Anterior Pelvic Plane to the vertical Sagittal Plane, rotation anteriorly being given a positive value. Pelvises that had rotated more than 13 degrees anteriorly (+ve) when sitting forward or posteriorly (-ve) when standing were considered to place the hip at increased risk of dislocation or edge loading when flexed or extending respectively. This degree of rotation has the effect of changing the acetabular version by approximately100. Most safe zones that have been described have given a range of anteversion of 200 as safe. A change of 100 would potentially place the acetabular orientation outside this range. Further, clinical studies have supported this concept. All lateral radiographs were reviewed to confirm that 281 had undergone instrumented spinal fusion at some level between T12 and S1. There was a large variability in the number and the levels arthrodesed. The range of pelvic mobility in the non-arthrodesed group in extension was −370 to 310 (mean −0.90, Standard deviation 7.49) and in flexed position was −700 to 490 (mean −1.90, Standard deviation 14.01). For the group with any fusion the range of pelvic tilt in extension was −310 to 220 (mean −40, Standard deviation 8.21) and flexed −320 to 460 (mean 4.40, Standard deviation 13.79). Of the 7121 cases without instrumented fusion, 15.5% were considered to be at risk when in flexion and 6.1% when extended. The risk for those with any fusion was approximately doubled in both flexion and extension. Further, those with extensive arthrodesis from T12 to S1 had a range of pelvic tilts similar to the non-fused group, although they had a significantly higher percentage of cases in the ‘at risk’ zones. The proportion of the cases in the ‘at risk’ zones decreased progressively as the arthrodesed levels moved from L5/S1 to the upper lumbar spine, and with decreasing number of levels fused. Spinal fusion is not just one group as there are many combinations of different levels fused. Patients with instrumented spinal fusions do have a proportionately high risk of failure of their THR than the majority of cases with no instrumentation, though the risk varies significantly with the number of levels and actual levels arthrodesed. Further approximately 21% of cases with no spinal fusion have functional pelvic movements that would potentially place them ‘at risk’ of edge loading or dislocation. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly.Conclusion
It is not always clear why some patients experience recurrent dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). In order to plan appropriate revision surgery for such patients, however, it is important to understand the specific biomechanical basis for the dislocation. We have developed a novel method to analyse the biomechanical profile of the THA, specifically to identify edge loading and prosthetic impingement, taking into account spinopelvic mobility. In this study we compare the results of this analysis in THA patients with and without recurrent dislocation. Post-operative CT scans and lateral standing and seated radiographs of 40 THA patients were performed, 20 of whom had experienced postoperative dislocation. The changes in pelvic and femoral positions on the lateral radiographs were measured between the standing and seated positions, and a 3D digital model was then generated to simulate the movement of the hip when rising from a chair for each patient. The path of the joint reaction force (JRF) across the acetabular bearing surface and the motion of the femoral neck relative to the acetabular margin were then calculated for this “sit-to-stand” movement, in order to identify where there was risk of edge loading or prosthetic impingement.Background
Methods
It is important to consider sagittal pelvic rotation when introducing
the acetabular component at total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose
of this study was to identify patients who are at risk of unfavourable
pelvic mobility, which could result in poor outcomes after THA. A consecutive series of 4042 patients undergoing THA had lateral
functional radiographs and a low-dose CT scan to measure supine
pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, standing pelvic tilt, flexed-seated
pelvic tilt, standing lumbar lordotic angle, flexed-seated lumbar
lordotic angle, and lumbar flexion. Changes in pelvic tilt from
supine-to-standing positions and supine-to-flexed-seated positions
were determined. A change in pelvic tilt of 13° between positions was
deemed unfavourable as it alters functional anteversion by 10° and
effectively places the acetabular component outside the safe zone
of orientation.Aims
Patients and Methods
