Introduction: To date the aetiology of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is still not completely understood. There are mechanical theories that suggest symptomatic FAI is linked to sagittal pelvic morphology and spinopelvic-femoral dynamics. The aim of this study is to evaluate the relation of sagittal pelvic morphology and orientation to radiographic signs of FAI. Additionally, we test whether the relation between FAI and spinopelvic parameters differs in osteoarthritic hips. Methods: From a prospective, observational cohort study, 1002 patients between 45 and 65 years old with a first episode of knee or hip pain were followed for 8 years. All patients who had lateral lumbar radiographs and clinical and radiographic follow-up of the hips were included in the present study. Range of internal rotation of the hip as well as radiographic signs of FAI (alpha and Wiberg angle) and presence of hip osteoarthritis (Kellgren and Lawrence) were systematically measured at baseline. Pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS)) were measured at 8-year follow-up. Associations between PI, PT, SS and FAI parameters were tested using generalised estimating equations. Results: 421 subjects, 842 hips, were included. No significant relations between PI, PT or SS and alpha or Wiberg angle were found. Comparison of hips with and without radiological sign(s) of FAI showed no differences in PI, PT or SS. There was no relation between range of internal rotation of the hip and spinopelvic parameters. Conclusion: Sagittal pelvic morphology and orientation are not related to the presence of radiological signs of FAI in this study population.

Femoral component orientation plays a key role in implant stability and therefore the success rate of total hip arthroplasty. To date, this topic has been studied using various definitions and a variety of imaging modalities and protocols. The aim of this study is a proof of concept that a new algorithm can be used to describe the femoral component's 3D orientation on the three orthogonal anatomical planes and relative to its mechanical axis using input from two orthogonal planes. CT scans of 18 patients with a total of 22 hip arthroplasties were collected. From these, orthogonal coronal and sagittal projections of the complete femur were acquired in the scanning position (MIPs) and relative to the femoral mechanical axis (corrected MIPs). On these images, the orientation of the neck of the femoral component in space and relative to the femoral axis, respectively, was measured by coronal inclination (CIF), sagittal inclination (SIF) and transverse version (TVF). With the algorithm, TVF was also calculated based on CIF and SIF. Differences between measured and calculated TVF and intra- and inter-observer reliability were evaluated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). The error of non-orthogonal imaging (85° angle between the sagittal and coronal reconstructions) was tested on a third series of MIPs. The ICC between the calculated TVF and manually measured TVF, in space and relative to the femoral axis, was 0.98 for both with median absolute differences of 1.3 and 1.5°. For non-orthogonal images this was 0.70 with a median absolute difference of 5°. ICCs for intra-observer and inter-observer reliability for the calculated TVF values were 0.98 and 0.88, respectively. With this algorithm the transverse orientation of the neck of the femoral component can be assessed in space and relative to the mechanical femoral axis by combining its sagittal and coronal orientation. As long as the imaging visualizes two orthogonal planes, the orientation of an implant can be assessed in 3-D, regardless of the imaging modality.

BACKGROUND: Decreased pelvic mobility and pelvic retroversion may result from spinal degeneration and lead to changes in the orientation of the acetabular implant after total hip arthroplasty (THA). While multiple patient and surgery-related factors contribute to THA dislocations, there is increasing evidence that sagittal spinopelvic dynamics are relevant for THA stability. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the relationship between previously described sagittal spinopelvic characteristics and implant dislocations after primary THA. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search in the PubMed and Embase databases was conducted for studies reporting on spinopelvic morphology, alignment, pathology, or surgery and THA dislocations. Risk of bias was assessed using the MINORS criteria. Because of high heterogeneity in study methodology, a synthesis of best evidence was performed. Odds ratios (ORs), relative risks (RRs), and effect sizes (g) were calculated. RESULTS: Fifteen studies (1,007,900 THAs) with quality scores of 15 to 23 out of 24 were included. Nine different spinopelvic alignment parameters (8 studies, g = 0.14 to 2.02), spinal pathology (2 studies, OR = 1.9 to 29.2), and previous spinal fusion surgery (8 studies, OR = 1.59 to 23.7, RR = 3.0) were found to be related to THA dislocation. Conflicting results were found for another sagittal pelvic morphology parameter, pelvic incidence. CONCLUSIONS: Several sagittal spinopelvic patient characteristics were found to be related to THA dislocation, and the associated risks were greater than for other patient and surgery-related factors. Future research is needed to determine which of those characteristics and parameters should be taken into account in patients undergoing primary THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Introduction: Dislocation remains a major complication in total hip arthroplasty (THA), in which femoral component orientation is considered a key parameter. New imaging modalities and definitions on femoral component orientation have been introduced, describing orientation in different planes. This study aims to systematically review the relevance of the different orientation parameters on implant stability. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines to identify articles in the PubMed and EMBASE databases that study the relation between any femoral component orientation parameters and implant stability in primary THA. Results: After screening for inclusion and exclusion criteria and quality assessment, nine articles were included. Definitions to describe the femoral component orientation and methodologies to assess its relevance for implant stability differed greatly, with lack of consensus. Seven retrospective case–control studies reported on the relevance of the transversal plane orientation: Low femoral- or low combined femoral and acetabular anteversion was statistical significantly related with more posterior dislocations, and high femoral- or combined femoral and acetabular anteversion with anterior dislocations in two studies. There were insufficient data on sagittal and coronal component orientation in relation to implant stability. Conclusion: Because of incomparable definitions, limited quality and heterogeneity in methodology of the included studies, there is only weak evidence that the degree of transverse component version is related with implant stability in primary THA. Recommendations about the optimal orientation of the femoral component in all three anatomical planes cannot be provided. Future studies should uniformly define the three-dimensional orientation of the femoral component and systematically describe implant stability.

BACKGROUND: Sagittal pelvic dynamics mainly consist of the pelvis rotating anteriorly or posteriorly while the hips flexes, and this affects the femoroacetabular or THA configuration. Thus far, it is unknown how the acetabular cup of the THA in the individual patient reorients with changing sagittal pelvic dynamics. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The aim of this study was to validate a method that establishes the three-dimensional (3-D) acetabular cup orientation with changing sagittal pelvic dynamics and describe these changes during functional pelvic dynamics. METHODS: A novel trigonometric mathematical model, which was incorporated into an easy-to-use tool, was tested. The model connected sagittal tilt, transverse version, and coronal inclination of the acetabular cup during sagittal pelvic tilt. Furthermore, the effect of sagittal pelvic tilt on the 3-D reorientation of acetabular cups was simulated for cups with different initial positions. Twelve pelvic CT images of patients who underwent THA were taken and rotated around the hip axis to different degrees of anterior and posterior sagittal pelvic tilt (± 30°) to simulate functional pelvic tilt in various body positions. For each simulated pelvic tilt, the transverse version and coronal inclination of the cup were manually measured and compared with those measured in a mathematical model in which the 3-D cup positions were calculated. Next, this model was applied to different acetabular cup positions to simulate the effect of sagittal pelvic dynamics on the 3-D orientation of the acetabular cup in the coronal and transverse plane. After pelvic tilt was applied, the intraclass correlation coefficients of 108 measured and calculated coronal and transverse cup orientation angles were 0.963 and 0.990, respectively, validating the clinical use of the mathematical model. RESULTS: The changes in 3-D acetabular cup orientation by functional pelvic tilt differed substantially between cups with different initial positions; the change in transverse version was much more pronounced in cups with low coronal inclination (from 50° to -29°) during functional pelvic tilt than in cups with a normal coronal inclination (from 39° to -11°) or high coronal inclination (from 31° to 2°). However, changes in coronal inclination were more pronounced in acetabular cups with high transverse version. CONCLUSION: Using a simple algorithm to determine the dynamic 3-D reorientation of the acetabular cup during functional sagittal pelvic tilt, we demonstrated that the 3-D effect of functional pelvic tilt is specific to the initial acetabular cup orientation and thus per THA patient. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Future studies concerning THA (in)stability should not only include the initial acetabular cup orientation, but also they need to incorporate the effect of sagittal pelvic dynamics on the individual 3-D acetabular cup orientation. Clinicians can also use the developed tool, www.3d-hip.com, to calculate the acetabular cup's orientation in other instances, such as for patients with spinopelvic imbalance.

Background: Anterior and posterior pelvic tilt appears to play a role in total hip arthroplasty (THA) stability. When changing from the standing to the sitting position, the pelvis typically rotates posteriorly while the hips flex and this affects the femoro-acetabular positions. This case-control study compares changes in 3-D acetabular cup orientation during functional pelvic tilt between posterior THA dislocations vs stable THAs. Methods: Standing and sitting 3-D cup orientation was compared between fifteen posterior dislocations vs 233 prospectively followed stable THAs. 3-D cup orientation was calculated using previously validated trigonometric algorithms on biplanar radiographs. Those algorithms combine the angles in the three anatomical planes (coronal inclination, transverse version, and sagittal ante-inclination) in the standing position with the change in sagittal pelvic tilt from standing to sitting to calculate the 3-D orientation in the sitting position. Results: The standing cup orientation of the dislocated THAs was only characterized by a lower coronal inclination (P =.039). Compared with the controls, from standing to sitting, they showed less posterior pelvic tilt (P <.001). This led to a significant lower coronal inclination (P <.001) and sagittal ante-inclination (P <.001) in the sitting position but similar transverse version (P =.366). Conclusions: Comparing posterior THA dislocations to stable THAs, there is a lower increase of all three orientation angles from standing to sitting. This leads to a decreased sitting coronal inclination and sagittal ante-inclination which may lead to an increased risk of impingement ensued by THA instability. By contrast, the transverse version was not significantly different in both positions. This confirms the importance of biplanar data on functional cup orientation. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic, Level III.

AIMS: The aetiologies of common degenerative spine, hip, and knee pathologies are still not completely understood. Mechanical theories have suggested that those diseases are related to sagittal pelvic morphology and spinopelvic-femoral dynamics. The link between the most widely used parameter for sagittal pelvic morphology, pelvic incidence (PI), and the onset of degenerative lumbar, hip, and knee pathologies has not been studied in a large-scale setting. METHODS: A total of 421 patients from the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) database, a population-based observational cohort, with hip and knee complaints < 6 months, aged between 45 and 65 years old, and with lateral lumbar, hip, and knee radiographs available, were included. Sagittal spinopelvic parameters and pathologies (spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease (DDD)) were measured at eight-year follow-up and characteristics of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) at baseline and eight-year follow-up. Epidemiology of the degenerative disorders and clinical outcome scores (hip and knee pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) were compared between low PI (< 50°), normal PI (50° to 60°), and high PI (> 60°) using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Demographic details were not different between the different PI groups. L4 to L5 and L5 to S1 spondylolisthesis were more frequently present in subjects with high PI compared to low PI (L4 to L5, OR 3.717; p = 0.024 vs L5 to S1 OR 7.751; p = 0.001). L5 to S1 DDD occurred more in patients with low PI compared to high PI (OR 1.889; p = 0.010), whereas there were no differences in L4 to L5 DDD among individuals with a different PI. The incidence of hip OA was higher in participants with low PI compared to normal (OR 1.262; p = 0.414) or high PI (OR 1.337; p = 0.274), but not statistically different. The incidence of knee OA was higher in individuals with a high PI compared to low PI (OR 1.620; p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: High PI is a risk factor for development of spondylolisthesis and knee OA. Low pelvic incidence is related to DDD, and may be linked to OA of the hip. Level of Evidence: 1b Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1261-1267.

Introduction: Dislocation is one of the main reasons for revision of total hip arthroplasty but dislocation rates have not changed in the past decades, compromising patients’ well-being. Acetabular cup orientation plays a key role in implant stability and has been widely studied. This article investigates whether there is a consensus on optimal cup orientation, which is necessary when using a navigation system. Methods: A systematic search of the literature in the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed (March 2017) to identify articles that investigated the direct relationship between cup orientation and dislocation, including a thorough evaluation of postoperative cup orientation assessment methods. Results: Twenty eight relevant articles evaluating a direct relation between dislocation and cup orientation could not come to a consensus. The key reason is a lack of uniformity in the assessment of cup orientation. Cup orientation is assessed with different imaging modalities, different methodologies, different definitions for inclination and anteversion, several reference planes and distinct patient positions. Conclusions: All available studies lack uniformity in cup orientation assessment; therefore it is impossible to reach consensus on optimal cup orientation. Using navigation systems for placement of the cup is inevitably flawed when using different definitions in the preoperative planning, peroperative placement and postoperative evaluation. Further methodological development is required to assess cup orientation. Consequently, the postoperative assessment should be uniform, thus differentiating between anterior and posterior dislocation, use the same definitions for inclination and anteversion with the same reference plane and with the patient in the same position.

Objective: To determine the comparability among 10 radiographic anteversion methods for acetabular cup orientation in total hip arthroplasty (THA) found in the literature and the “gold” standard of assessing the anteversion with CT. Methods: This is a retrospective study that blindly compares 10 different conventional radiographic anteversion measurements with the “gold” standard, the measurement of anteversion on the transverse plane of the 3-D images made with CT. The patient archiving and communications system (PACS) was systematically searched for subjects that had undergone a CT angiogram of the abdomen and lower extremities, including the pelvis, had at least one THA in situ and had undergone anterior-posterior (AP) and cross-lateral pelvic radiography between January 2013 and August 2016 in the Diakonessenhuis Hospital Utrecht/Zeist, a non-academic institution. CT scans of patients (n = 16) were systematically collected. Three observers independently measured cup anteversion from radiographs, using a total of 10 different methods, and measured the “gold” standard on CT images. The outcomes of the 10 radiographic anteversion were compared in terms of linear correlation with the “gold” standard on CT images. Results: The correlations of the radiographic measured anteversions with the “gold” standard measured on CT images were 0.528 for the method of Liaw, 0.556 for Wan, 0.562 for the cross-lateral method, 0.586 for Hassan, 0.594 for Dorr, 0.602 for Lewinnek, 0.624 for Widmer, 0.671 for the lateral CT, 0.747 for Ackland, and 0.771 for the method of Riten Pradham. Conclusion: Anteversion measurement methods represent different projectional angles of the acetabular cup in different planes around different axes. Therefore, they differ from the “gold” standard and are not interchangeable, as is shown by this study. We consider the anatomical anteversion in the transverse plane rotating around the longitudinal axis as the “gold” standard and recommend avoiding using the term anteversion for other projectional angles in different planes.