Does obesity affect acetabular cup position, spinopelvic function and sagittal spinal alignment? A prospective investigation with standing and sitting assessment of primary hip arthroplasty patients

Abstract

Abstract Background Total hip arthroplasty (THA) instability is influenced by acetabular component positioning, spinopelvic function and sagittal spinal alignment. Obesity is considered as a risk factor of THA instability, but the causal relationship remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the influence of BMI on (1) spinopelvic function (lumbar flexibility, pelvic mobility and hip motion), (2) sagittal spinal alignment pre- and postoperatively and (3) acetabular cup position postoperatively in primary THA patients in a prospective setting. Methods One hundred ninety patients receiving primary total hip arthroplasty were enrolled in a prospective cohort study and retrospectively analysed. All patients received stereoradiography (EOS) in standing and relaxed sitting position pre-and postoperatively. C7-sagittal vertical axis (C7-SVA), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), anterior plane pelvic tilt (APPT), and pelvic femoral angle (PFA) were assessed. Key parameters of the spinopelvic function were defined as lumbar flexibility (∆ LL = LLstanding − LLsitting), pelvic mobility (∆ PT = PTstanding − PTsitting) and hip motion (∆ PFA = PFAstanding − PFAsitting). Pelvic mobility was further defined based on ∆ PT as stiff, normal and hypermobile (∆ PT < 10°; 10°–30°; > 30°). The patients were stratified to BMI according to WHO definition: normal BMI ≥ 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 (n = 68), overweight ≥ 25.0–29.9 kg/m2 (n = 81) and obese ≥ 30–39.9 kg/m2 (n = 41). Post-hoc analysis according to Hochberg's GT2 was applied to determine differences between BMI groups. Results Standing cup inclination was significant higher in the obese group compared to the normal BMI group (45.3° vs. 40.1°; p = 0.015) whereas standing cup anteversion was significantly decreased (22.0° vs. 25.3°; p = 0.011). There were no significant differences for spinopelvic function key parameter lumbar flexibility (∆ LL), pelvic mobility (∆ PT) and hip motion (∆ PFA) in relation to BMI stratified groups. The obese group demonstrated significant enhanced pelvic retroversion compared to the normal BMI group (APPT − 1.8° vs. 2.4°; p = 0.028). The preoperative proportion of stiff pelvic mobility was decreased in the obese group (12.2%) compared to normal (25.0%) and overweight (27.2%) groups. Spinal sagittal alignment in C7-SVA and PI-LL mismatch demonstrated significantly greater imbalance in the obese group compared to the normal BMI group (68.6 mm vs. 42.6 mm, p = 0.002 and 7.7° vs. 1.2°, p = 0.032, respectively) The proportion of patients with imbalanced C7-SVA was higher in the obese (58.5%) than in the normal BMI group (44.1%). Conclusions The significantly increased spinal sagittal imbalance with altered pelvic mechanics is a potential cause for the reported increased risk of THA dislocations in obese patients. Consequently, the increased spinal sagittal imbalance in combination with normal pelvic mobility need to be taken into account when performing THA in obese patients.