Do 3-dimensional Spinopelvic Characteristics Normalize After THA? A Prospective, Comparative Study Using Motion Capture Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spinopelvic stiffness (primarily in the sagittal plane) has been identified as a factor associated with inferior patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and increased dislocation risk after THA. Incorporating preoperative spinopelvic characteristics into surgical planning has been suggested to determine a patient-specific cup orientation that minimizes dislocation risk. Sagittal plane radiographic analysis of static postures indicates that patients exhibit a degree of normalization in their spinopelvic characteristics after THA. It is not yet known whether normalization is also evident during dynamic movement patterns, nor whether it occurs in the coronal and axial planes as well. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does motion capture analysis of sagittal spinopelvic motion provide evidence of normalization after THA? (2) Do changes in coronal and axial plane motion accompany those in the sagittal plane? METHODS: Between April 2019 and February 2020, 25 patients agreed to undergo motion capture movement analysis before THA for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis (OA). Of those, 20 underwent the same assessment between 8 and 31 months after THA. Five patients were excluded because of revision surgery (n = 1), contralateral hip OA (n = 1), and technical issues with a force plate during post-THA assessment (n = 3), leaving a cohort total of 15 (median age [IQR] 65 years [10]; seven male and eight female patients). A convenience sample of nine asymptomatic volunteers, who were free of hip and spinal pathology, was also assessed (median age 51 years [34]; four male and five female patients). Although the patients in the control group were younger than those in the patient group, this set a high bar for our threshold of spinopelvic normalization, reducing the possibility of false positive results. Three-dimensional motion capture was performed to measure spinal, pelvic, and hip motion while participants completed three tasks: seated bend and reach, seated trunk rotation, and gait on a level surface. ROM during each task was assessed and compared between pre- and post-THA conditions and between patients and controls. Statistical parametric mapping (SPM) was used to assess the timing of differences in motion during gait, and spatiotemporal gait parameters were also measured. RESULTS: After THA, patients demonstrated improvements in sagittal spinal (median [IQR] 32° [18°] versus 41° [14°]; difference of medians 9°; p = 0.004), pelvis (25° [21°] versus 30° [8°]; difference of medians 5°; p = 0.02), and hip ROM (21° [18°] versus 27° [10°]; difference of medians 6°; p = 0.02) during seated bend and reach as well in sagittal hip ROM during gait (30° [11°] versus 44° [7°]; difference of medians 14°; p < 0.001) compared with their pre-THA results, and they showed a high degree of normalization overall. These sagittal plane changes were accompanied by post-THA increases in coronal hip ROM (12° [9°] versus 18° [8°]; difference of medians 6°; p = 0.01) during seated trunk rotation, by both coronal (6° [4°] versus 9° [3°]; difference of medians 3°; p = 0.01) and axial (10° [8°] versus 16° [7°]; difference of medians 6°; p = 0.003) spinal ROM, as well as coronal (8° [3°] versus 13° [4°]; difference of medians 5°; p < 0.001) and axial hip ROM (21° [11°] versus 34° [24°]; difference of medians 13°; p = 0.01) during gait compared with before THA. The SPM analysis showed these improvements occurred during the late swing and early stance phases of gait. CONCLUSION: When restricted preoperatively, spinopelvic characteristics during daily tasks show normalization after THA, concurring with previous radiographic findings in the sagittal plane. Thus, spinopelvic characteristics change dynamically, and incorporating them into surgical planning would require predictive models on post-THA improvements to be of use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".