Background Sitting pelvic tilt dictates the proximity of the rim of the acetabulum to the proximal femur and, therefore, the risk of impingement in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). Sitting position is achieved through a combination of lumbar spine segmental motions and/or femoroacetabular articular motion in the lumbarpelvic-femoral complex. Multilevel degenerative disc disease (DDD) may limit spine flexion and therefore increase femoroacetabular flexion in patients having THAs, but this has not been well characterized. Therefore, we measured standing and sitting lumbar-pelvic-femoral alignment in patients with radiographic signs of DDD and in patients with no radiographic signs of spine arthrosis.Questions/purposes We asked: (1) Is there a difference in standing and sitting lumbar-pelvic-femoral alignment before surgery among patients undergoing THA who have no radiographic signs of spine arthrosis compared with those with preexisting lumbar DDD? (2) Do patients with lumbar DDD experience less spine flexion moving from a standing to a sitting position and therefore compensate with more femoroacetabular flexion compared with patients who have no radiographic signs of arthrosis? Methods Three hundred twenty-five patients undergoing primary THA had preoperative low-dose EOS spine-toankle lateral radiographs in standing and sitting positions. Eighty-three patients were excluded from this study for scoliosis (39 patients), spondylolysis (15 patients), not having five lumbar vertebrae (7 patients), surgical or disease fusion (11 patients), or poor image quality attributable to high BMI (11 patients). In the remaining 242 of 325 patients (75%), two observers categorized the lumbar spine as either without radiographic arthrosis or having DDD based on defined radiographic criteria. Sacral slope, lumbar lordosis, and proximal femur angles were measured, and these angles were used to calculate lumbar spine flexion and femoroacetabular flexion in standing and sitting positions. Patients were aligned in a standardized sitting position so that their femurs were parallel to the floor to achieve approximately 90°of apparent hip flexion. Results After controlling for age, sex, and BMI, we found patients with DDD spines had a mean of 5°more posterior pelvic tilt (95% CI, À2°to À8°lower sacral slope angles; p \0.01) and 7°less lumbar lordosis (95% CI, À10°to À3°; p \ 0.01) in the standing position compared with patients without radiographic arthrosis. However, in the sitting position, patients with DDD spines had 4°less posterior pelvic tilt (95% CI, 1°-7°higher sacral slope angles; p = 0.02). From standing to sitting position, patients with DDD

No abstract

Pelvic tilt (PT) affects the functional anteversion and inclination of acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty (THA). One-hundred and thirty-eight consecutive patients who underwent unilateral primary THA were reviewed. Most cases had some degree of pre-operative PT, with 17% having greater than 10° of PT on standing pre-operative radiographs. There was no significant change in PT following THA. A computer model of a hemispheric acetabular component implanted in a range of anatomic positions in a pelvis with varying PT was created to determine the effects of PT on functional anteversion and inclination. Based on the study results, tilt-adjustment of the acetabular component position based on standing pre-operative imaging will likely improve functional component position in most patients undergoing THA.

Recent studies suggest the ‘Lewinnek safe zone’ for acetabular component position is outdated. We used a large prospective institutional registry to determine if there is a ‘safe zone’ exists for acetabular component position within which the risk of hip dislocation is low and if other patient and implant factors affect the risk of hip dislocation. Patients who reported a dislocation event within six months after hip replacement surgery were identified, and acetabular component position was measured with anteroposterior radiographs. The frequency of dislocation was 2.1% (147 of 7040 patients). No significant difference was found in the number of dislocated hips among the zones. Dislocators <50 years old were less active preoperatively than nondislocators (p=0.006). Acetabular component position alone is not protective against instability.

The most common reasons for failure within 2 years after TKA were infection and stiffness. The multivariable regression identified the following preoperative risk factors for TKA failure: history of drug abuse (hazard ratio [HR] 4.68; P = 0.03), deformity/mechanical preoperative diagnosis (HR 3.52; P < .01), having a constrained condylar knee implant over posterior-stabilized implant (HR 1.99; P < .01), post-traumatic/trauma preoperative diagnosis (HR 1.78; P = .03), and younger age (HR 0.61; P < .01) CONCLUSION: These findings add to the growing data that primary TKAs are no longer failing from polyethylene wear-related issues. This study identified preoperative risk factors for failure of primary TKAs, which may be useful information for developing strategies to improve outcomes following TKA.