Scholarlink

Background <p>Dislocation remains a common reason for revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA), and adverse spinopelvic mobility is increasingly recognized as a major contributor to instability. Whether its prevalence differs between surgical approaches is unclear. This study compared adverse spinopelvic mobility and associated risk factors in patients who sustained a dislocation after a posterior approach (PA) or a direct anterior approach (DAA), and evaluated whether implant positioning differed between groups.</p> Methods <p>A retrospective analysis was performed on 133 patients with post-operative dislocation and available functional lateral radiographs and low-dose CT scans, including 85 PA and 48 DAA dislocations. Spinopelvic parameters, dynamic pelvic motion between standing, sitting, and supine postures, and established spinopelvic risk factors were assessed. Cup orientation, femoral version, combined anteversion, limb length, and global offset were compared.</p> Results <p>Spinopelvic morphology was similar, with no significant differences in standing spinopelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, PI-LL mismatch, lumbar lordosis, or lumbar flexion. However, dynamic motion differed markedly. A change in spinopelvic tilt (SPT) of ≥ 20° from standing to seated occurred in 41.3% of DAA dislocations versus 21.1% after PA (<i>p</i> = 0.029). A change in SPT ≤  − 13° from supine to standing occurred in 17.8% after DAA compared with 4.7% after PA (<i>p</i> = 0.048). Other spinopelvic risk factors showed no significant differences. Implant positioning was largely comparable; femoral and combined anteversion, cup inclination, and limb length were similar. Although femoral head size and global offset differed between groups, the association between surgical approach and adverse spinopelvic mobility persisted after accounting for these implant-related factors.</p> Conclusion <p>Patients dislocating after DAA demonstrated a substantially higher prevalence of adverse spinopelvic mobility despite similar implant orientation and hip restoration. These findings suggest that dynamic pelvic behavior may contribute to anterior instability patterns and highlight the potential relevance of hip–spine assessment in patients undergoing anterior-approach THA.</p> Trial registration <p>Retrospectively registered, CNIL MR004 2,225,508.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Spinopelvic mobility patterns in patients with dislocation after THA: Direct anterior versus posterior approach

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月13日

查看全文
  • Thomas Aubert,
  • Antoine Mouton,
  • Guillaume Auberger,
  • Michael Butnaru,
  • Nicolas Guegan,
  • Christopher Plaskos

摘要

Background

Dislocation remains a common reason for revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA), and adverse spinopelvic mobility is increasingly recognized as a major contributor to instability. Whether its prevalence differs between surgical approaches is unclear. This study compared adverse spinopelvic mobility and associated risk factors in patients who sustained a dislocation after a posterior approach (PA) or a direct anterior approach (DAA), and evaluated whether implant positioning differed between groups.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on 133 patients with post-operative dislocation and available functional lateral radiographs and low-dose CT scans, including 85 PA and 48 DAA dislocations. Spinopelvic parameters, dynamic pelvic motion between standing, sitting, and supine postures, and established spinopelvic risk factors were assessed. Cup orientation, femoral version, combined anteversion, limb length, and global offset were compared.

Results

Spinopelvic morphology was similar, with no significant differences in standing spinopelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, PI-LL mismatch, lumbar lordosis, or lumbar flexion. However, dynamic motion differed markedly. A change in spinopelvic tilt (SPT) of ≥ 20° from standing to seated occurred in 41.3% of DAA dislocations versus 21.1% after PA (p = 0.029). A change in SPT ≤  − 13° from supine to standing occurred in 17.8% after DAA compared with 4.7% after PA (p = 0.048). Other spinopelvic risk factors showed no significant differences. Implant positioning was largely comparable; femoral and combined anteversion, cup inclination, and limb length were similar. Although femoral head size and global offset differed between groups, the association between surgical approach and adverse spinopelvic mobility persisted after accounting for these implant-related factors.

Conclusion

Patients dislocating after DAA demonstrated a substantially higher prevalence of adverse spinopelvic mobility despite similar implant orientation and hip restoration. These findings suggest that dynamic pelvic behavior may contribute to anterior instability patterns and highlight the potential relevance of hip–spine assessment in patients undergoing anterior-approach THA.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered, CNIL MR004 2,225,508.