Definition of normal, neutral, deviant and aberrant coronal knee alignment for total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: One of the most pertinent questions in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is: what could be considered normal coronal alignment? This study aims to define normal, neutral, deviant and aberrant coronal alignment using large data from a computed tomography (CT)-scan database and previously published phenotypes. METHODS: Coronal alignment parameters from 11,191 knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients were measured based on three dimensional reconstructed CT data using a validated planning software. Based on these measurements, patients' coronal alignment was phenotyped according to the functional knee phenotype concept. These phenotypes represent an alignment variation of the overall hip knee ankle angle (HKA), femoral mechanical angle (FMA) and tibial mechanical angle (TMA). Each phenotype is defined by a specific mean and covers a range of ±1.5° from this mean. Coronal alignment is classified as normal, neutral, deviant and aberrant based on distribution frequency. Mean values and distribution among the phenotypes are presented and compared between two populations (OA patients in this study and non-OA patients from a previously published study). RESULTS: The arithmetic HKA (aHKA), combined normalised data of FMA and TMA, showed that 36.0% of knees were neutral within ±1 SD from the mean in both angles, 44.3% had either a TMA or a FMA within ±1-2 SD (normally aligned), 15.3% of the patients were deviant within ±2-3 SD and only 4.4% of them had an aberrant alignment (±3-4 SD in 3.4% and >4 SD in 1.0% of the patients respectively). However, combining the normalised data of HKA, FMA and TMA, 15.4% of patients were neutral in all three angles, 39.7% were at least normal, 27.7% had at least one deviant angle and 17.2% had at least one aberrant angle. For HKA, the males exhibited 1° varus and females were neutral. For FMA, the females exhibited 0.7° more valgus in mean than males and grew 1.8° per category (males grew 2.1° per category). For TMA, the males exhibited 1.3° more varus than females and both grew 2.3° and 2.4° (females) per category. Normal coronal alignment was 179.2° ± 2.8-5.6° (males) and 180.5 > ± 2.8-5.6° (females) for HKA, 93.1 > ± 2.1-4.2° (males) and 93.8 > ± 1.8-3.6° (females) for FMA and 86.7 > ± 2.3-4.6° (males) and 88 > ± 2.4-4.8° (females) for TMA. This means HKA 6.4 varus or 4.8° valgus (males) or 5.1° varus to 6.1° valgus was considered normal. For FMA HKA 1.1 varus or 7.3° valgus (males) or 0.2° valgus to 7.4° valgus was considered normal. For TMA HKA 7.9 varus or 1.3° valgus (males) or 6.8° varus to 2.8° valgus was considered normal. Aberrant coronal alignment started from 179.2° ± 8.4° (males) and 180.5 > ± 8.4° (females) for HKA, 93.1 > ± 6.3° (males) 93.8 > ± 5.4° (females) for FMA and 86.7 > ± 6.9° (males) and 88 > ± 7.2° (females) for TMA. This means HKA > 9.2° varus or 7.6° valgus (males) or 7.9° varus to 8.9° valgus was considered aberrant. CONCLUSION: Definitions of neutrality, normality, deviance as well as aberrance for coronal alignment in TKA were proposed in this study according to their distribution frequencies. This can be seen as an important first step towards a safe transition from the conventional one-size-fits-all to a more personalised coronal alignment target. There should be further definitions combining bony alignment, joint surfaces' morphology, soft tissue laxities and joint kinematics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Caliper-Verified Kinematically Aligned Total Knee Arthroplasty: Rationale, Targets, Accuracy, Balancing, Implant Survival, and Outcomes.

Peer-reviewed studies published up to May 2022 are used to provide a comprehensive understanding of unrestricted kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty. The intent is to cultivate the curiosity of those interested in this method of personalized alignment. The rationale of unrestricted kinematic alignment is to set the femoral and tibial components coincident with the patient's prearthritic joint lines, restore the femoral and tibial phenotypes, and coalign the three kinematic axes of the components with those of the knee. The surgical technique, learning curve, and accuracy of performing kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty with a caliper and company manufactured manual instrumentation should be explored and compared with robotic instrumentation. Kinematic alignment restores the native knee's medial and lateral tibial compartment forces, which mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty cannot do even after ligament release. In addition, insert conformity plays a role in restoring native tibiofemoral kinematics. A literature review of clinical outcomes, long-term durability, and the risk of varus tibial component failure and patellofemoral instability shows unrestricted kinematic alignment has comparable if not superior results when compared with mechanical alignment.

The medial condylar wall is a reliable landmark to kinematically align the femoral component in medial UKA: an in-silico study.

PURPOSE: Kinematic alignment (KA) aligns the femoral implant perpendicular to the cylindrical axis in the frontal and axial plane. Identification of the kinematic axes when using the mini-invasive sub-quadricipital approach is challenging in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). This study aims to assess if the orientation of condylar walls may be suitable for use as an anatomical landmark to kinematically align the femoral component in medial UKA. It was hypothesised that the medial wall of the medial condyle would prove to be a reliable anatomical landmark to set both the frontal and axial alignment of the femoral component in medial UKA. METHODS: 73 patients undergoing medial UKA had pre-operative CT imaging to generate 3D models. Those with osteophytes that impaired visualisation of the condylar walls were excluded. 28 patients were included in the study. The ideal KA was determined using the cylindrical axis in the frontal and axial plane. Simulations using the medial wall of the medial condyle (MWMC) and the lateral wall of the medial condyle (LWMC) were performed to set the frontal alignment. To set the axial alignment, the MWMC, LWMC, medial wall of the lateral condyle (MWLC), and medial diagonal line (MDL) anatomical landmarks were investigated. Differences between the ideal measured KA values and values obtained using landmarks were investigated. RESULTS: Use of the MWMC let to similar frontal alignment compared to the ideal KA (2.9° valgus vs 3.4° valgus, p = 0.371) with 46.4% (13/28) of measurements being [Formula: see text] 1.0° different from the ideal KA and only 1 simulation with greater than 4.0° difference. Use of the MWMC led to very similar axial alignments compared to the ideal KA (0.5° internal vs 0.0°, p = 0.960) with 75.0% (21/28) of measurements being [Formula: see text] 1.0o different from the ideal KA, and a maximum difference of 3.0°. Use of the MWLC and MDL was associated with significant statistical differences when compared to the ideal KA (p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: The native orientation of the medial condylar wall seems to be a reliable anatomical landmark for aligning the femoral component in medial KA UKA in both the axial plane and frontal planes. Other assessed landmarks were shown to not be reliable. Clinical and radiographic assessments of the reliability of using the MWMC to set the frontal and axial orientation of the femoral component when performing a medial KA UKA are needed.

Kinematic alignment of medial UKA is safe: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Owing to the improved understanding of knee kinematics and the successful introduction of the kinematic alignment (KA) technique for implanting total knee arthroplasty (TKA), it was recently understood that the "Cartier angle technique" corresponds to a kinematic implantation of the uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) components. When compared to the universally spread mechanical alignment (MA) technique for implanting UKA, the KA method generates a more anatomic prosthetic knee that may be clinically advantageous. The aims of this study are to determine if KA UKAs are associated with acceptable functional performance and patient satisfaction (question 1), rates of residual pain and tibia plateau fracture (question 2), and rates of reoperation and revision (question 3), and to define the component orientation and limb alignment as measured on radiograph (question 4), and the stress shielding related bone loss in the proximal tibia (question 5) with KA UKA, and where possible to compare with MA UKA. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: KA UKA generates good clinical outcomes, similar or superior to the ones of MA UKA. METHOD: Systematic review of literature databases were primarily searched using Healthcare Databases Advanced Search (HDAS). Two primary searches were conducted using the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed, and a secondary search was conducted using review articles and bibliography of obtained papers in order to ascertain more material. RESULTS: Nine eligible non-comparative prospective (3) or retrospective (6) cohort studies, which cumulated 593 KA UKAs with follow-up between 3.2 and 12 years, fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The findings demonstrated high Knee Society Score (KSS) (from 87 to 95) and function scores (from 81 to above 91) in addition to patient satisfaction scores of 88%. There was no revision for tibia plateau fracture, 0.8% (5 cases) for unexplained pain tibia, 2.0% (12 cases) for component loosening, and 5.6% (33 cases) for any causes of aseptic failures reported for KA UKA. The prosthetic lower limb and tibia implant alignments were both found to be in slight varus (means between 3 and 5°), and the postoperative joint line and tibia component was shown to be parallel to the floor when standing. The KA UKA components migration, as measured on radiostereometry, was acceptable. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The KA technique is an alternative, personalised, more physiological method for implanting UKA, which could be clinically advantageous when compared to the MA technique. The literature supports the good mid- to long-term clinical safety and good efficacy of KA UKA; however, comparison between KA and MA techniques for UKA was not performed due to limited literature. Further investigations are needed to better define the clinical impact of KA UKA, and the acceptable limits for KA of the UKA tibial component. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4; systematic review of level 4 studies.

The relationship between pelvic incidence and anatomical acetabular anteversion in female Japanese patients with hip osteoarthritis: a retrospective iconographic study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed (1) to investigate the relationship between pelvic incidence (PI) and the anatomical acetabular anteversion (AA) relative to the spino-pelvic tilt (SPT) plane (anatomical AASPT), relative to the anterior pelvic plane (anatomical AAAPP), and functional standing AA; and (2) to compare AA and the sagittal spino-pelvic parameters of lumbo-pelvic complex types 1 (PI ≤ 30°) and 2 (PI > 30°), in Japanese females with hip osteoarthritis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on 110 Japanese females with unilateral hip osteoarthritis. PI, standing lumbar lordosis (LL), standing SPT, anatomical AASPT, anatomical AAAPP, and functional standing AA were measured and calculated using radiographs and computed tomography. The PI-LL difference was defined as the mathematical difference between the PI and standing LL angles. Pearson's correlation test was used to measure the relationship between the PI and AA. Student's t test was used to compare spino-pelvic parameters between lumbo-pelvic complex type 1 (n = 24) and type 2 (n = 86). RESULTS: There was a significant relationship between the PI and anatomical AASPT (r = -0.532, p < 0.001), but no significant relationship between the PI and anatomical AAAPP (r = -0.021, p = 0.824) or functional standing AA (r = 0.104, p = 0.299). Lumbo-pelvic complex type 1 had a higher anatomical AASPT (22.4° ± 9.1° vs. 5.4° ± 15.1°, p < 0.001), similar anatomical AAAPP (15.0° ± 10.6° vs. 15.1° ± 15.3°, p = 0.981) and functional standing AA (12.4° ± 8.0° vs. 15.0° ± 14.1°, p = 0.254), a lower standing SPT (- 14.3° ± 11.0° vs. 13.7° ± 12.6°, p < 0.001), and a lower PI-LL difference (- 14.4° ± 18.5° vs. 6.4° ± 17.1°, p < 0.001) in comparison to lumbo-pelvic complex type 2. CONCLUSION: Our findings will help to improve the understanding of hip anatomy and its relationship with the standing spino-pelvic alignment in Japanese females with hip osteoarthritis.

[Alignment techniques for implantation of a total knee endoprosthesis with particular focus on kinematic alignment]. / Ausrichtungstechniken zur Implantation einer Knietotalendoprothese mit besonderem Fokus auf die kinematische Ausrichtung.

BACKGROUND: This review introduces various techniques for implantation of a total knee endoprosthesis and scrutinizes the "mechanical alignment" of a total knee endoprosthesis, whereby the various alignment concepts are examined. In particular, kinematic alignment, in terms of its significance, the individual steps of the implantation technique and the data collected, will be examined in more detail. METHODS: Improvement in the clinical results after implantation of a total knee endoprosthesis can be achieved by a personalized, individualized, physiological implantation that respects the unique anatomical characteristics of each patient. In recent years, many alternative alignment techniques have been developed, some of them showing promising approaches. RESULTS: The kinematic implantation technique can be performed reliably and inexpensively, and shows good biomechanical results. Although the first clinical results are encouraging, further studies should be carried out to determine the limits of optimal alignment.

Kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty better reproduces normal gait than mechanical alignment.

PURPOSE: Kinematic alignment technique for TKA aims to restore the individual knee anatomy and ligament tension, to restore native knee kinematics. The aim of this study was to compare parameters of kinematics during gait (knee flexion-extension, adduction-abduction, internal-external tibial rotation and walking speed) of TKA patients operated by either kinematic alignment or mechanical alignment technique with a group of healthy controls. The hypothesis was that the kinematic parameters of kinematically aligned TKAs would more closely resemble that of healthy controls than mechanically aligned TKAs. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study. Eighteen kinematically aligned TKAs were matched by gender, age, operating surgeon and prosthesis to 18 mechanically aligned TKAs. Post-operative 3D knee kinematics analysis, performed with an optoelectronic knee assessment device (KneeKG®), was compared between mechanical alignment TKA patients, kinematic alignment TKA patients and healthy controls. Radiographic measures and clinical scores were also compared between the two TKA groups. RESULTS: The kinematic alignment group showed no significant knee kinematic differences compared to healthy knees in sagittal plane range of motion, maximum flexion, abduction-adduction curves or knee external tibial rotation. Conversely, the mechanical alignment group displayed several significant knee kinematic differences to the healthy group: less sagittal plane range of motion (49.1° vs. 54.0°, p = 0.020), decreased maximum flexion (52.3° vs. 57.5°, p = 0.002), increased adduction angle (2.0-7.5° vs. - 2.8-3.0°, p < 0.05), and increased external tibial rotation (by a mean of 2.3 ± 0.7°, p < 0.001). The post-operative KOOS score was significantly higher in the kinematic alignment group compared to the mechanical alignment group (74.2 vs. 60.7, p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: The knee kinematics of patients with kinematically aligned TKAs more closely resembled that of normal healthy controls than that of patients with mechanically aligned TKAs. This may be the result of a better restoration of the individual's knee anatomy and ligament tension. A return to normal gait parameters post-TKA will lead to improved clinical outcomes and greater patient satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Less gap imbalance with restricted kinematic alignment than with mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty: simulations on 3-D bone models created from CT-scans.

Background and purpose - Mechanical alignment techniques for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) introduce significant anatomic alteration and secondary ligament imbalances. We propose a restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) protocol to minimize these issues and improve TKA clinical outcomes.Patients and methods - rKA tibial and femoral bone resections were simulated on 1,000 knee CT scans from a database of patients undergoing TKA. rKA was defined by the following criteria: independent tibial and femoral cuts within 5° of the bone neutral mechanical axis, with a resulting HKA within 3° of neutral. Imbalances in the extension space, flexion space at 90°, medial compartment and lateral compartment were calculated and compared with measured resection mechanical alignment (MA) results. 2 MA techniques were simulated for rotation using the surgical transepicondylar axis (TEA) and 3° to the posterior condyles (PC).Results - Extension space imbalances ≥ 3 mm occurred in 33% of TKAs with MA technique versus 8.3% with rKA (p < 0.001). Similarly, more frequent flexion space imbalance ≥ 3mm was created by MA technique (TEA 34% or 3° PC 15%) versus rKA (6.4%, p < 0.001). Using MA with TEA or PC, there were only 49% and 63% of the knees respectively with < 3 mm of imbalance throughout the extension and flexion spaces and medial and lateral compartments versus 92% using rKA (p < 0.001).Interpretation - significantly fewer imbalances are created using rKA versus MA for TKA. rKA may be the best compromise, by helping the surgeon to preserve native knee ligament balance during TKA and avoid residual instability, whilst keeping the lower limb alignment within a safe range.

Which method for femoral component sizing when performing kinematic alignment TKA? An in silico study.

INTRODUCTION: The kinematically alignment (KA) technique for TKA aims to reproduce the pre-arthritic knee anatomy, including both the femoro-tibial and femoro-patellar joints. An in silico study was conducted to compare 3 different femoral component sizing techniques to identify the anatomical landmark which allows closest restoration of the native trochlear anatomy. Our study's question was: what was the best method for sizing the femoral component when performing KA-TKA? It was hypothesized that sizing the femoral component by aiming to restore the groove height would be the best method to restore the native trochlear anatomy. METHODS: GMK sphere® (Medacta) femoral component 3D models were virtually kinematically aligned on 30 tri-dimensional (3D) bony osteoarthritis knee models. The femoral component was mediolaterally positioned to match distal native and prosthetic grooves. Three methods were used to size the femoral component: a conventional method with the anterior femoral cut flush to the femoral cortex (C-KATKA) and two alternative personalized methods aiming to recreate either the medial facet's height (ATM-KATKA) or the groove's height (ATG-KATKA). In-house analysis software was used to compare native and prosthetic trochlear articular surfaces and mediolateral implant overhangs. RESULTS: Compared with the C-KATKA, ATG-KATKA and ATM-KATKA techniques increased the component size by a mean of 0.90 (SD 0.31, min 0.5 to max 1.5) (p<0.001) and 1.02 (SD 0.31, min 0.5 to max 1.5) (p<0.001), respectively. C-KATKA technique substantially proximally understuffed the trochleae with maximum values of 7.11mm (SD 1.39, min 3.93mm to max 10.57mm) in the medial facet, 4.72mm (SD 1.27, min 1.46mm to max 6.86mm) in the lateral facet and 4.51mm (SD 1.40, min 1.92mm to max 7.30mm) in the groove, respectively. Alternative techniques understuffed medial facet with maximum values of 5.07mm (SD 1.29, min 2.83mm to max 8.34mm) and 4.70mm (SD 1.52, min 0.83mm to max 8.04mm) for ATG-KATKA and ATM-KATKA techniques, respectively. There was no significant understuffing of the groove or lateral facet for alternative techniques (ATM and ATG). The ATM-KATKA and ATG-KATKA techniques generated mediolateral implant overhang, mainly postero-lateral, with a rate of 90.0% and 86.7%, respectively. In this study, no mediolateral implant overhang was found for C-KATKA. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The C-KATKA technique substantially understuffs the native trochlear articular surfaces in medial, lateral and groove parts. Alternative techniques (ATM-KATKA and ATG-KATKA) for sizing the femoral component better restore the native trochlear anatomy but also generate a high rate of postero-lateral implant overhangs. Would this postero-lateral implant overhang be clinically deleterious remains unknown? The aspect ratio of contemporary femoral TKA implants can probably be optimized to allow a better anatomical restoration of the anterior femoral compartment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, in silico study.

Alumina on alumina versus metal on conventional polyethylene: a randomized clinical trial with 9 to 15 years follow-up.

We report the long-term results of a randomized clinical trial that compares, in total hip arthroplasty in a young population, metal-on-conventional polyethylene and alumina-on-alumina ceramic bearings. One hundred and forty hips in 116 patients were randomized. Re-operation, revision rate, clinical scores, and radiological signs of osteolysis and loosening were compared at average follow-up of 123 (9-15) years. At final FU, 107 hips were available for clinical evaluation. Eight (11.6%) revisions were performed in the polyethylene group versus 1 (1.4%) in the ceramic group (p = 0.017). All revisions in the polyethylene group were related to bearing wear: 4 for aseptic loosening with severe osteolysis, 1 for polyethylene induced compressive granulomatous tumor, and 3 for severe liner wear. The only revised case from the ceramic group was secondary to mechanical stem loosening. Mean annual polyethylene wear was 0.19mm/year; wear was not measurable in the ceramic group. Our study confirms, in the long-term, the superiority of ceramic-on-ceramic pairing in comparison to metal-on-conventional polyethylene and supports their use in young, active patients.

Limb alignment changes with knee flexion: A study based on CAS data.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence has questioned the value of standing limb alignment for predicting the adduction moment and forces exerted on healthy and prosthetic knees. The purpose of this study was to assess the lower limb alignment of OA knee patients at various knee flexion angles. The main hypothesis was that lower limb alignment measured throughout knee flexion does not significantly differ between patients displaying different extension alignment (neutral, varus or valgus). METHODS: 206 arthritic knee patients undergoing computer-assisted total (CAS) knee prosthesis were included. Frontal limb alignment was assessed in a systematic manner by CAS at three knee positions: extension, 90 degrees of flexion and maximal flexion. The HKA angle at each knee position and the change in HKA angle between two knee positions (delta value) were reported and compared. RESULTS: A large proportion of OA patients had significant variation in their lower limb alignment (32% with Δ HKA > 5°). The extended limb deformity tended to reduce with knee flexion: mean of 5° and 6° deformity reduction for varus and valgus patients, 40% and 66% of varus and valgus patients progressed to neutral alignment with 90° knee flexion. Forty percent of neutral extended lower limb did not maintain their neutral alignment but rather progressed to either varus or valgus at 90° knee flexion. CONCLUSIONS: Limb alignment in extension is a poor predictor of limb alignment in flexion in OA patients. Only considering the traditional frontal alignment of an extended lower limb for planning knee arthroplasty or osteotomy is likely insufficient.

Evolution of Concepts: Can Personalized Hip Arthroplasty Improve Joint Stability?

Hip arthroplasty procedures are successful and reproducible. However, within the first two post-operative years, hip dislocations are the most common cause for revisions. This is despite the majority of the dislocations having the acetabular component within what is described as the 'safe zone'. The limitations of such boundaries do not take into account the variability of individual hip anatomy and functional pelvic orientation that exist. An alternative concept to address hip instability and improve overall outcomes is functional acetabular orientation. In this review article, we discuss the evolution of concepts, particularly the kinematic alignment technique for hip arthroplasty and the use of large-diameter heads to understand why total hip arthroplasty dislocations occur and how to prevent them.

Why personalized surgery is the future of hip and knee arthroplasty: a statement from the Personalized Arthroplasty Society.

Although hip and knee joint replacements provide excellent clinical results, many patients still do not report the sensation and function of a natural joint. The perception that the joint is artificial may result from the anatomical modifications imposed by the surgical technique and the implant design. Moreover, the joint replacement material may not function similarly to human tissues. To restore native joint kinematics, function, and perception, three key elements play a role: (i) joint morphology (articular surface geometry, bony anatomy, etc.), (ii) lower limb anatomy (alignment, joint orientation), and (iii) soft tissue laxity/tension. To provide a 'forgotten joint' to most patients, it is becoming clear that personalizing joint replacement is the key solution. Performing a personalized joint replacement starts with patient selection and preoperative optimization, followed by using a surgical technique and implant design aimed at restoring the patient's native anatomy, creating optimal implant-to-bone stress transfer, restoring the joint's native articular range of motion without imposed limitations, macro- and micro-stability of the soft tissues, and a bearing whose wear resistance provides lifetime survivorship with unrestricted activities. In addition, the whole perioperative experience should follow enhanced recovery after surgery principles, favoring a rapid and complication-free recovery. As a new concept, some confusion may arise when applying these personalized surgery principles. Therefore, the Personalized Arthroplasty Society was created to help structure and accelerate the adoption of this paradigm change. This statement from the Society on personalized arthroplasty will serve as a reference that will evolve with time.

Moderate relationship between function and satisfaction of total hip arthroplasty patients: a cross sectional study.

PURPOSE: Patient satisfaction regarding their hip replacement is often assumed to be directly linked to functional outcomes. We led this study to answer 2 questions: (1) what is the level of patient satisfaction, function, and quality of life after primary total hip replacement (THR); and (2) what is the relationship between patient satisfaction and functional and quality of life PROMs after THR? METHODS: We led a retrospective study using our institutional registry of prospectively and consecutively collected data on patients after primary THR undertaken between 2004 and 2017. We included 6710 patients with a complete 2-year set of follow-up data for Oxford Hip Score (OHS) (for assessing patient's function), EQ-5D (for assessing patient's quality of life) and satisfaction PROM scores. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in all OHS and EQ-5D scores from preoperative level, and the mean postoperative satisfaction score was 89/100. We found moderate positive correlations between the patients' outcome satisfaction VAS score and OHS (r = 0.665) and EQ-5D (r = 0.554). CONCLUSIONS: THR is a successful procedure generating high levels of patient function and satisfaction. Because patients' OHS and EQ-5D scores may be influenced by comorbidities, those scores are of poor predictive value in estimating patient satisfaction, and therefore should not be used as a surrogate to determine the success of the THR procedure.

The significant relationship among the factors of pelvic incidence, standing lumbar lordosis, and lumbar flexibility in Japanese patients with hip osteoarthritis: A descriptive radiographic study.

INTRODUCTION: Spine stiffness is known to increase the risk of total hip replacement (THR) instability. The sagittal posture and lumbo-pelvic kinematics have therefore become parameters of interest when planning THR. We conducted this study to investigate (1) the distribution and characteristics of the spino-pelvic standing alignment, (2) the relationship between pelvic incidence (PI) and standing lumbar lordosis (LL) and lumbar flexibility, in Japanese hip osteoarthritis patients. HYPOTHESIS: (1) Japanese hip osteoarthritis patients with different sagittal spino-pelvic alignments do not differ markedly in their demographics, PI, or lumbar flexibility; and (2) there is no significant relationship between PI, standing LL, and lumbar flexibility in a population of Japanese hip osteoarthritis patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study of radiographs from 945 Japanese patients who consecutively received THR for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis. All patients pre-operatively underwent lateral standing and deep-seated lumbo-pelvic radiography on which the spino-pelvic parameters were measured. The difference between the standing and deep-seated LL angles defined the lumbar flexibility and was calculated as the delta (Δ) LL. Individual spino-pelvic standing alignment was stratified based on the difference between the PI and standing LL ('PI-LL mismatch'). 'PI-LL mismatch' of<-10°, between -10° and 10°, and>10° was defined as hyperlordosis, normolordosis, and flatback, respectively. RESULTS: In the present study, the spinal alignment of 115/945 (12.2%), 559/945 (59.2%), and 271/945 (28.6%) patients were classified as hyperlordosis, normolordosis, and flatback, respectively. Hyperlordotic patients had significantly lower PI (47.6°±7.8° vs. 52.7°±10.5°, p<0.001) and higher ΔLL (60.6°±12.6° vs. 51.6°±12.8°, p<0.001) than normolordotic patients. Patients with flatback were significantly older (age, 69.1±9.1 years vs. 62.7±9.8 years, p<0.001) with higher PI (56.9°±11.7° vs. 52.7°±10.5°, p<0.001) and lower ΔLL (35.2°±17.4° vs. 51.6°±12.8°, p<0.001) than normolordotic patients. A significant relationship between PI and the standing LL was found in the whole cohort (r=0.409, p=0.009), hyperlordotic (r=0.785, p<0.001), normolordotic (r=0.857, p<0.001), and flatback (r=0.664, p<0.001) patients. Significant relationships between the PI and ΔLL were also found in normolordotic (r=0.442, p=0.004) and flatback (r=0.449, p=0.003) patients but not hyperlordotic patients (r=0.154, p=0.367). DISCUSSION: A large proportion of Japanese hip osteoarthritis patients have abnormal PI-LL mismatch (12% and 29% have hyperlordosis and flatback, respectively). The PI was a determinant of the standing LL and the lumbar flexibility, especially in the normolordotic and flatback individuals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; retrospective diagnostic radiographic study.