ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2026
Surgical strategies and sequencing decisions for ankylosing spondylitis with severe hip deformity.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Advanced ankylosing spondylitis (AS) may involve both the thoracolumbar spine and the hips, resulting in a complex deformity characterized by kyphosis, pelvic retroversion, and hip ankylosis. In severe cases, both pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) may be required, but the optimal surgical sequence remains controversial. Main body: This controversy arises from the biomechanical coupling of the spine-pelvis-hip complex. Spinal correction can restore sagittal balance and alter pelvic orientation, thereby affecting the functional position of the acetabular component in THA. Conversely, severe hip ankylosis and contracture may compromise patient positioning, acetabular exposure, and even the feasibility of spinal correction. This review summarizes the biomechanical rationale, clinical indications, advantages, and limitations of spine-first and hip-first strategies, and highlights that surgical sequencing should be determined according to deformity dominance, surgical feasibility, and the anticipated postoperative spinopelvic environment. Conclusions: Neither spine-first nor hip-first surgery is universally appropriate for patients with AS and severe hip deformity. Surgical sequencing should be individualized through comprehensive assessment of spinal deformity, pelvic compensation, hip pathology, and expected changes in spinopelvic alignment after reconstruction.
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.