Hip & pelvis

The Korean Hip Society (대한고관절학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Relationship between Spinopelvic Parameters and Hip Function in Patients with Femoroacetabular Impingement at Diagnosis: A Cross-Sectional Study

  • Bernardo Aguilera-Bohorquez (Hip Preservation Unit, Clinica Imbanaco Grupo QuironSalud) ;
  • Pablo Corea (Hip Preservation Unit, Clinica Imbanaco Grupo QuironSalud) ;
  • Cristina Siguenza (Hip Preservation Unit, Clinica Imbanaco Grupo QuironSalud) ;
  • Jochen Gerstner-Saucedo (Hip Preservation Unit, Clinica Imbanaco Grupo QuironSalud) ;
  • Alvaro Carvajal (Hip Preservation Unit, Clinica Imbanaco Grupo QuironSalud) ;
  • Erika Cantor (Institute of Statistics, Universidad de Valparaiso)
  • Received : 2022.08.03
  • Accepted : 2022.10.31
  • Published : 2023.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine correlation between the spinopelvic parameters in sitting and standing positions (sacral slope [SS], lumbar lordosis [LL], spinopelvic tilt [SPT], pelvic incidence [PI], and pelvic femoral angle [PFA]), with hip function assessed using the modified Harris hip scores (mHHs) in patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) at diagnosis. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study of 52 patients diagnosed with symptomatic FAI was conducted. Evaluation of the spinopelvic complex in terms of SS, LL, SPT, PI and PFA was performed using lateral radiographs of the pelvis and lumbosacral spine in standing and sitting positions. Assessment of hip function at diagnosis was performed using the mHHs. Calculation of spinopelvic mobility was based on the difference (Δ) between measurements performed in standing and sitting position. Results: The median time of pain evolution was 11 months (interquartile range [IQR], 5-24 months) with a median mHHs of 66.0 points (IQR, 46.0-73.0) at diagnosis. The mean change of LL, SS, SPT, and PFA was 20.9±11.2°, 14.2±8.6°, 15.5±9.0°, and 70.7±9.5°, respectively. No statistically significant correlation was observed between spinopelvic parameters and the mHHs (P>0.05). Conclusion: Radiological parameters of the spinopelvic complex did not show correlation with hip function at the time of diagnosis in patients with symptomatic FAI. Conduct of further studies will be required in the effort to understand the effect of the spinopelvic complex and its compensatory mechanics, primarily between the hip and spine, in patients with FAI before and after hip arthroscopy.

Keywords

References

  1. Innmann MM, Merle C, Phan P, Beaule PE, Grammatopoulos G.Differences in spinopelvic characteristics between hip osteoarthritis patients and controls. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36:2808-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.03.031 
  2. Innmann MM, Reichel F, Schaper B, Merle C, Beaule PE, Grammatopoulos G. How does spinopelvic mobility and sagittal functional cup orientation affect patient-reported outcome 1 year after THA?- a prospective diagnostic cohort study. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36:2335-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.02.014 
  3. Riviere C, Hardijzer A, Lazennec JY, Beaule P, Muirhead-Allwood S, Cobb J. Spine-hip relations add understandings to the pathophysiology of femoro-acetabular impingement: a systematic review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103:549-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.03.010 
  4. Chambers CC, Zhang AL. Outcomes for surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in adults. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019;12:271-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-019-09567-1 
  5. Fader RR, Tao MA, Gaudiani MA, et al. The role of lumbar lordosis and pelvic sagittal balance in femoroacetabular impingement. Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B:1275-9. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B10.BJJ-2018-0060.R1 
  6. Weinberg DS, Gebhart JJ, Liu RW, Salata MJ. Radiographic signs of femoroacetabular impingement are associated with decreased pelvic incidence. Arthroscopy. 2016;32:806-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2015.11.047 
  7. Mascarenhas VV, Rego P, Dantas P, et al. Imaging prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement in symptomatic patients, athletes, and asymptomatic individuals: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:73-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.10.016 
  8. Yin QF, Zhang J, Liang T, Liu YJ, Zhang SX, Li CB. The evaluation of sagittal pelvic-femoral kinematics in patients with cam-type femoracetabular impingement. Orthop Surg. 2021;13:1748-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.13038 
  9. Lindman I, Nikou S, Ohlin A, et al. Evaluation of outcome reporting trends for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome- a systematic review. J Exp Orthop. 2021;8:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-021-00351-0 
  10. Aprato A, Jayasekera N, Villar RN. Does the modified Harris hip score reflect patient satisfaction after hip arthroscopy? Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:2557-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546512460650 
  11. Weasis. Weasis DICOM medical viewer [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Sep 28]. Available from: https://nroduit.github.io/en/. 
  12. Innmann MM, Merle C, Phan P, Beaule PE, Grammatopoulos G. How can patients with mobile hips and stiff lumbar spines be identified prior to total hip arthroplasty? A prospective, diagnostic cohort study. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(6S):S255-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.029 
  13. Liljequist D, Elfving B, Skavberg Roaldsen K. Intraclass correlation- a discussion and demonstration of basic features. PLoS One.2019;14:e0219854. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219854 
  14. Innmann MM, Merle C, Gotterbarm T, Ewerbeck V, Beaule PE, Grammatopoulos G. Can spinopelvic mobility be predicted in patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty? A prospective, diagnostic study of patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B:902-9. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B8.BJJ-2019-0106.R1 
  15. Pizones J, Garcia-Rey E. Pelvic motion the key to understanding spine-hip interaction. EFORT Open Rev. 2020;5:522-33. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.5.200032 
  16. Heckmann ND, Lieberman JR. Spinopelvic biomechanics and total hip arthroplasty: a primer for clinical practice. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021;29:e888-903. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSD-20-00953 
  17. Lee SH, Lim CW, Choi KY, Jo S. Effect of spine-pelvis relationship in total hip arthroplasty. Hip Pelvis. 2019;31:4-10. https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2019.31.1.4 
  18. Jimenez AE, Fox JD, Miecznikowski K, et al. Limited lumbopelvic mobility does not influence short-term outcomes after primary hip arthroscopy: a propensity-matched controlled study. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2021;8:177-84. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnab056 
  19. Beck EC, Nwachukwu BU, Chapman R, Gowd AK, Waterman BR, Nho SJ. The influence of lumbosacral spine pathology on minimum 2-year outcome after hip arthroscopy: a nested case-control analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48:403-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546519892916 
  20. Feingold JD, Heaps B, Turcan S, Swartwout E, Ranawat A. A history of spine surgery predicts a poor outcome after hip arthroscopy. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2019;6:227-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnz029 
  21. Heaps BM, Feingold JD, Swartwout E, et al. Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae predict inferior patient-reported outcomes after hip arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48:3272-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546520961160