ArticleBone & joint open2025
Pelvic version and kinematics in patients with total hip arthroplasty: a scoping review of current classification systems and recommendations based on spinal alignment.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Elevated-rim liner positioning in total hip arthroplasty: a compromise between dislocation biomechanics and range of motion.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) failure occurs more frequently in patients with abnormal pelvic version and kinematics, as these individuals are at greater risk of impingement and dislocation. This scoping review summarizes current classification systems for hip-spine and spine-hip issues in THA, defines specific patterns of pelvic version and kinematics, and integrates recommendations to optimize outcomes. Methods: An extensive literature review was carried out in October 2024 on MEDLINE, Cochrane, ProQuest, and PubMed medical databases, reporting classification systems with specific diagnostic recommendations and treatment strategies. The search included articles published in English language from January 2016 until September 2024. Search keywords included 'Total hip arthroplasty' or 'total hip arthroplasty' in combination with 'hip-spine', 'spine-hip', 'lumbopelvic', 'spinopelvic', 'pelvic version', 'pelvic kinematic', and 'pelvic mobility'. Seven eligible articles were selected and analyzed. Results: Current hip-spine classifications characterize groups of patients based on specific parameters. Available classifications were summarized in a nomogram illustrating all combinations of pelvic version and kinematics, and that provides recommendations to minimize the risk of complications following THA for each pattern. Specific recommendations are provided for patients with abnormal pelvic version and kinematics. Notably, for patients presenting stiff, stuck-standing, or stuck-standing pelvis, the surgeon should increase cup inclination and anteversion and also consider an anti-dislocation implant design and offset femoral component. Conversely, if lumbopelvic mismatch is present in stiff, stuck-sitting patients, cup anteversion must be reduced. Conclusion: This review provides an integrated and comprehensive overview of the current literature on spinopelvic issues in THA patients. It highlights the complexity of the issue and the need for a unified understanding of the different classifications. The review also provides robust and consistent recommendations for managing patients with abnormal pelvic version and kinematics. Further studies are required to validate the efficacy of the recommendations proposed by current available classification systems.
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.