Integrating the Combined Sagittal Index Reduces the Risk of Dislocation Following Total Hip Replacement
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The aims of this matched cohort study were to (1) assess differences in spinopelvic characteristics between patients who sustained a dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and a control group without a dislocation, (2) identify spinopelvic characteristics associated with the risk of dislocation, and (3) propose an algorithm including individual spinopelvic characteristics to define an optimized cup orientation target to minimize dislocation risk. METHODS: Fifty patients with a history of THA dislocation (29 posterior and 21 anterior dislocations) were matched for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), index diagnosis, surgical approach, and femoral head size with 200 controls. All patients underwent detailed quasi-static radiographic evaluations of the coronal (offset, center of rotation, and cup inclination/anteversion) and sagittal (pelvic tilt [PT], sacral slope [SS], pelvic incidence [PI], lumbar lordosis [LL], pelvic-femoral angle [PFA], and cup anteinclination [AI]) reconstructions. The spinopelvic balance (PI - LL), combined sagittal index (CSI = PFA + cup AI), and Hip-User Index were determined. Parameters were compared between the control and dislocation groups (2-group analysis) and between the controls and 2 dislocation groups identified according to the direction of the dislocation (3-group analysis). Important thresholds were determined from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses and the mean values of the control group; thresholds were expanded incrementally in conjunction with running-hypothesis tests. RESULTS: There were no coronal differences, other than cup anteversion, between groups. However, most sagittal parameters (LL, PT, CSI, PI - LL, and Hip-User Index) differed significantly. The 3 strongest predictors of instability were PI - LL >10° (sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 65% for instability regardless of direction), CSIstanding of <216° (posterior instability), and CSIstanding of >244° (anterior instability). A CSI that was not between 205° and 245° on the standing radiograph (CSIstanding) was associated with a significantly increased dislocation risk (odds ratio [OR]: 4.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.2 to 8.2; p < 0.001). In patients with an unbalanced and/or rigid lumbar spine, a CSIstanding that was not 215° to 235° was associated with a significantly increased dislocation risk (OR: 5.1; 95% CI: 1.8 to 14.9; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Spinopelvic imbalance (PI - LL >10°) determined from a preoperative standing lateral spinopelvic radiograph can be a useful screening tool, alerting surgeons that a patient is at increased dislocation risk. Measurement of the PFA preoperatively provides valuable information to determine the optimum cup orientation to aim for a CSIstanding of 205° to 245°, which is associated with a reduced dislocation risk. For patients at increased dislocation risk due to spinopelvic imbalance (PI - LL >10°), the range for the optimum CSI is narrower. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».