Influence of pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis mismatch on surgical outcomes of total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch has been widely studied in spinal disorders; however, its impact on total hip arthroplasty (THA) outcomes remains unclear. This study evaluated the impact of preoperative PI-LL mismatch on postoperative functional recovery and spinopelvic dynamics in patients undergoing THA. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 167 patients who underwent primary unilateral THA. Patients were categorised into two groups based on a PI-LL mismatch threshold of 10°: mismatch group (PI-LL ≥ 10°) and matched group (PI-LL < 10°). Preoperative characteristics, spinopelvic parameters, and clinical outcomes were analysed. The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were used to assess the hip condition preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The mismatch group exhibited a significantly higher pelvic tilt (PT) and lower sacral slope (SS) than the matched group. Furthermore, the mismatch group demonstrated reduced spinal flexibility, as indicated by a significantly smaller difference in spinopelvic angle between maximum lateral flexion positions. The spinopelvic parameters (PI, LL, PT, and SS) remained stable from preoperative to postoperative assessments. Preoperative mHHS and WOMAC scores were significantly worse in the mismatch group. However, no significant differences in postoperative outcomes were observed between the groups at 6 months. CONCLUSION: PI-LL mismatch was associated with altered spinopelvic parameters and poorer preoperative functional scores. However, short-term outcomes after THA remained comparable. These findings underscore the importance of individualised preoperative assessment while supporting the efficacy of THA, irrespective of spinopelvic alignment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".