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

Table 4 Comparison of global alignment change and spinopelvic motion among each group from standing to sitting

	Normal Group ∆PT ≥ 10° (n = 84)		Stiffness Group 0° ≤ ∆PT < 10° (n = 35)		Paradoxical Group ∆PT < 0° (n = 5)		P-value
Difference (Sitting-standing)
∆SVA (cm)	2.2	±4.7	1.3	±3.2	6.2	±2.0^b	0.014*
TSPM	− 75	±18	−74	±12	−85	±6	0.216
∆LL	−25	±15	−7	±7^a	−7	±5^a	< 0.001**
∆PFA	− 51	±14	−66	±11^a	−78	±6^ab	< 0.001**
∆PT	21	±8	6	±3^a	−3	±1^ab	< 0.001**

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
^aP < 0.05 compared to normal group
^bP < 0.05 compared to stiffness group
SVA C7-sagittal vertical axis, TSPM total spinopelvic motion, LL lumbar lordosis, PFA proximal femur angle, PT pelvic tilt

ISSN: 1471-2474