“Stuck in the middle”: the missing lumbosacral link in total hip arthroplasty

Abstract

Introduction:

Spinopelvic mobility drives functional acetabular position, influencing dislocation risk after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients have been described as “stuck sitting” or “stuck standing” based on pelvic tilt (PT). We hypothesised that some patients are “stuck in the middle,” meaning their PT changes minimally from sitting to standing – increasing their risk of dislocation.

Methods:

We reviewed 195 patients with standing and sitting whole body radiographs prior to THA. Standing anterior pelvic plane tilt (APPT) and standing and sitting sacral slope (SS) were measured and used to calculate sitting APPT. Normal standing and sitting were defined as APPT >−10° and <−20°, respectively. Spinal stiffness was classified as <10° change in sacral slope between sitting and standing. Patients were categorised as: (A) able to fully sit and stand; (B) “stuck sitting” - able to fully sit; unable to fully stand; (C) “stuck standing” - able to fully stand; unable to fully sit; or (D) “stuck in the middle” - unable to sit or stand fully.

Results:

84 patients could sit and stand normally (A), 22 patients were stuck sitting (B), 76 patients were stuck standing (C), and 13 patients were stuck in the middle (D). While 111 patients (56.9%) were considered stuck, only 58 patients (29.7%) met criteria for spinal stiffness.

Discussion:

We identified a subset of patients with stiff spines and abnormal PT in both sitting and standing, including 37.1% of patients who would be classified as “stuck sitting” based only on standing radiographs. Placing acetabular components in less than anatomic anteversion in these patients may increase posterior dislocation risk.

Keywords

Alignment dislocation pelvic tilt sacral slope spinopelvic mobility total hip arthroplasty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Horberg

Coobs

Jiwanal

, et al. Dislocation rates following total hip arthroplasty via the direct anterior approach in a consecutive, non-selective cohort. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B(Suppl. B): 38–45.

Ulrich

Seyler

Bennett

, et al. Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision? Int Orthop 2008; 32: 597–604.

Jafari

Coyle

Mortazavi

SMJ

, et al. Revision hip arthroplasty: infection is the most common cause of failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 2046–2051.

Goel

Lau

Ong

, et al. Dislocation rates following primary total hip arthroplasty have plateaued in the Medicare population. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 743–746.

Lewinnek

Lewis

Tarr

, et al. Dislocations after total-hip replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978; 60: 217–220.

Abdel

von Roth

Jennings

, et al. What safe zone? The vast majority of dislocated THAs are within the Lewinnek Safe Zone for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474: 386–391.

Esposito

Gladnick

Lee

, et al. Cup position alone does not predict risk of dislocation after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 109–113.

Lum

Coury

Cohen

, et al. The current knowledge on spinopelvic mobility. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 291–296.

Stefl

Lundergan

Heckmann

, et al. Spinopelvic mobility and acetabular component position for total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B(Suppl. A): 37–45.

10.

Kanawade

Dorr

Wan

. Predictability of acetabular component angular change with postural shift from standing to sitting position. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96: 978–986.

11.

Phan

Bederman

Schwarzkopf

. The influence of sagittal spinal deformity on anteversion of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B: 1017–1023.

12.

Vigdorchik

Sharma

Buckland

, et al. 2021 Otto Aufranc Award: a simple Hip-Spine classification for total hip arthroplasty: validation and a large multicenter series. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(Suppl. B): 17–24.

13.

Sharma

Vigdorchik

. The hip-spine relationship in total hip arthroplasty: how to execute the plan. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36(Suppl.): S111–S120.

14.

Kleeman-Forthuber

Vigdorchik

Pierrepont

, et al. Pelvic incidence significance relative to spinopelvic risk factors for total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2022; 104-B: 352–358.

15.

Ranawat

Lipman

, et al. Effect of spinal deformity on pelvic orientation from standing to sitting position. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 1222–1227.

16.

Shrout

Fleiss

. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420–428.

17.

Lum

Giordani

Meehan

. Total hip instability and the spinopelvic link. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2020; 13: 425–434.

18.

Nishihara

Sugao

Nishii

, et al. Measurements of pelvic flexion angle using three-dimensional computed tomography. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 411: 140–151.

19.

DiGioia

Hafez

Jaramaz

, et al. Functional pelvic orientation measured from lateral standing and sitting radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 453: 272–276.

20.

Philippot

Wegrzyn

Farizon

, et al. Pelvic balance in sagittal and Lewinnek reference planes in the standing, supine, and seated positions. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2009; 95: 70–76.

21.

Heckmann

Tezuka

Bodner

, et al. Functional anatomy of the hip joint. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36: 374–378.

22.

Tezuka

Heckmann

Bodner

, et al. Functional safe zone is superior to the Lewinnek safe zone for total hip arthroplasty: why the Lewinnek safe zone is not always predictive of stability. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: 3–8.

23.

Vigdorchik

Sharma

Madurawe

, et al. Prevalence of risk factors for adverse spinopelvic mobility among patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36: 2371–2378.