ArticleThe Journal of arthroplasty2023
The Current Proposed Total Hip Arthroplasty Surgical Planning Guidelines Based on Classification of Spine Stiffness May be Flawed Due to Incorrect Assumptions.
Article in The Journal of arthroplasty, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Spino-Pelvic Parameters in Asian Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty.Cureus · 2026Article
- The Relationship Between the Lumbopelvic Spine and Hip in Femoroacetabular Impingement Patients.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025Review
- Pelvic version and kinematics in patients with total hip arthroplasty: a scoping review of current classification systems and recommendations based on spinal alignment.Bone & joint open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe available classifications and preoperative planning tools for total hip arthroplasty assume that: 1) there is no variation in the sagittal pelvic tilt (SPT) if the radiographs are repeated, and 2) there is no significant change in the postoperative SPT postoperatively. We hypothesized that there would be significant differences in postoperative SPT tilt as measured by the sacral slope, thus rendering the current classifications and tools flawed.
methodsThis study was a multicenter, retrospective analysis of preoperative and postoperative (1.5-6 months) full-body imaging of 237 primary total hip arthroplasty (standing and sitting positions). Patients were categorized as 1) stiff spine (standing sacral slope sitting sacral slope < 10°) and 2) normal spine (standing sacral slope-sitting sacral slope ≥ 10°). Results were compared using the paired t-test. The posthoc power analysis showed a power of 0.99.
resultsThe difference in mean standing and sitting sacral slope between the preoperative and postoperative measurements was 1°. However, in standing position, this difference was more than 10° in 14.4% of patients. In the sitting position, this difference was more than 10° in 34.2% of patients and more than 20° in 9.8% of patients. Postoperatively, 32.5% of patients switched groups based on the classification, which rendered the preoperative planning suggested by the current classifications flawed.
conclusionCurrent preoperative planning and classifications are based on a single acquisition of preoperative radiographs without the incorporation of possible postoperative changes in SPT. Validated classifications and planning tools should incorporate repeated measurements to determine the mean and variance in SPT and consider the significant postoperative changes in SPT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.