Paradoxical spinopelvic motion: does global balance influence spinopelvic motion in total hip arthroplasty?

Table 2 Five patients with paradoxical spinopelvic motion

	Patient #1	Patient #2	Patient #3	Patient #4	Patient #5
Sex	Female	Male	Female	Female	Female
Age	70	101	72	61	76
Spinal fusion	No	No	L3–4 and L4–5	L4–5	T12-S2
Dislocation	Posterior dislocation	No	No	No	Posterior dislocation
Time to dislocation	1 month	No	No	No	4 months
Standing
SVA (cm)	−1.9	−8.1	−2.8	5.4	2.2
TK	17	37	20	20	33
LL	52	61	56	47	33
SS	39	36	39	37	15
PT	12	16	23	28	11
PI	51	52	62	65	26
PI-LL	−1	−9	6	18	−7
PFA	182	191	196	206	187
Cup anteversion	21	22	13	16	21
Cup inclination	25	41	45	44	45
Sitting
SVA (cm)	3.9	0.0	5.6	9.4	7.0
TK	14	41	17	29	35
LL	46	49	45	43	33
SS	44	38	40	39	18
PT	7	15	21	26	8
PFA	105	116	127	120	109
∆ (sitting-standing)
SVA (cm)	5.8	8.1	8.4	4.0	4.9
TK	−2	4	−3	9	2
LL	−6	−13	−12	−4	0
SS	5	2	1	2	2
PT	−5	−2	− 2	−3	− 2
PFA	−77	− 79	−69	−86	−79

SVA C7-sagittal vertical axis, TK thoracic kyphosis, LL lumbar lordosis, SS sacral slope, PT pelvic tilt, PI pelvic incidence, PI-LL PI-LL mismatch, PFA proximal femur angle

ISSN: 1471-2474