MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415438949 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.10.137

DO SPINOPELVIC CHARACTERISTICS NORMALIZE POST-TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY? A PROSPECTIVE, CASE-CONTROL, COMPARATIVE STUDY USING 3D MOTION CAPTURE ANALYSIS

2025· article· en· W4415438949 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas S. Ryan, Erik Kowalski, Danilo S. Catelli, Mario Lamontagne, George Grammatopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelvisSagittal planeKinematicsMotion analysisPelvic tiltTrunkMotion captureHip flexionRange of motion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study of the hip-spine interaction has received a lot of attention in total hip arthroplasty (THA), as adverse spinopelvic characteristics can influence surgical outcomes (e.g. dislocation risk). Surgeons have been advised to consider individual characteristics as part of pre-operative planning. In the presence of hip osteoarthritis, the stiff hip leads to reduced movement and associated compensatory movements in the pelvis and spine. These compensatory mechanisms have been suggested to resolve post-THA. However, to date, evidence is limited because i) these mechanisms have only been studied quasi-statically (i.e. radiographic assessments performed in different positions); and ii) only the sagittal plane has been studied. Study of these mechanisms via motion analysis allows for dynamic assessment during different activities and is a validated methodology. The aim of this study was to determine whether, and to what extent hip, pelvic and spinal ranges of motion (ROM) normalize following THA surgery, during tasks of daily living. This was a prospective, IRB-approved, case-control study. Fifteen patients (65.7±6.8yrs, M=7, F=8, BMI=26.7±3.7kg/m2) who received THA for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis, underwent 3D motion-capture analysis pre-operatively and at one-year post-THA. Controls (47.5±16.5yrs, M=4, F=5, BMI=23.2±2.8kg/m2) were gender-matched healthy volunteers (health workers). All participants performed a seated bend and reach (SBR) task and a seated trunk rotation (STR) task. A full-body, custom set of 45 markers was used, which allowed kinematic modeling of the pelvic segment, and hip and spinal joints. The SBR task was used to determine sagittal-plane (flexion/extension) kinematics. The STR task was used to determine transverse-plane (rotation) kinematics. Comparisons were made pre- and post-operatively (paired T-tests), and between the patient and control group (independent T-tests), for both tasks. The patient group exhibited significant deficits in sagittal-plane movement pre-THA during the SBR; pelvic tilt by 12.6° (p=0.010); hip flexion by 14.3° (p=0.003), and spinal flexion by 8.7° (p=0.079). Amongst patients, post-THA, pelvic (10.9°,p=0.010), hip (9.4°,p=0.011), and spinal (7.7°,p=0.002) ROM significantly increased. As a result, the differences detected pre-operatively between patients and controls, were no longer present post-THA, with similar sagittal-plane maximal ranges exhibited by both groups. The patient group displayed significantly less transverse plane motion pre-THA during STR compared to controls; 7.9° less pelvic rotation. Dynamic spinal, pelvic and hip characteristics significantly change post-THA. These changes occur in all three planes and influence/improve dynamics during activities of daily living. As a result, incorporation of these characteristics into pre-operative planning is likely to be sub-optimal. We would thus recommend considering individual, static characteristics into pre-operative planning, which takes into consideration age and sex and more reliably assesses sagittal posture and dynamics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207