European Spine Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 125–134 | Cite as

Spinopelvic parameter changes and low back pain improvement due to femoral neck anteversion in patients with severe unilateral primary hip osteoarthritis undergoing total hip replacement

  • Andrea PiazzollaEmail author
  • Giuseppe Solarino
  • Davide Bizzoca
  • Viola Montemurro
  • Pedro Berjano
  • Claudio Lamartina
  • Carlotta Martini
  • Biagio Moretti
Original Article



The study of the interrelation between hip and spine disorders is gaining increasing importance in the last years, but the link between Hip Osteoarthritis (HOA) and Low Back Pain (LBP) remains still unclear. Aim of the study is to assess the relationship between Femoral Neck Anteversion (FNA), LBP, and spinopelvic parameters in patients undergoing Total Hip Replacement (THR) for unilateral severe primary HOA.

Materials and methods

91 patients were recruited. Inclusion criteria were: grade 5 or 6 unilateral HOA, according to Turmezei, and Harris Hip score (HHS) <60. Exclusion criteria were: secondary hip osteoarthritis (dysplasia of the hip, rheumatoid arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis); previous surgery of the spine, hip or knee; scoliosis with a Cobb angle greater than 10°; spondylolisthesis; history of spine fractures; previous bone tuberculosis or any spine infections; any contraindications to CT; BMI >30. Patients were divided into two homogeneous Groups according to the presence (Group-A) or not of concomitant LBP (Group-B). All patients underwent preoperatively a hip CT scan to evaluate FNA, Acetabular Anteversion (AA), and Combined Anteversion (CA = FNA + AA). ΔFNA, ΔAA and ΔCA were calculated as the differences between the arthritic hip and the normal hip angles in each Group. Full spinal X-rays in upstanding position were performed before (baseline) and 6 months after THR (follow-up) to calculate spinopelvic parameters. The health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was evaluated at baseline and at follow-up using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), HHS, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RM), and Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). The intra-group and inter-group variability were assessed using, respectively, paired and unpaired t tests. At baseline, the association between HRQoL scores and ΔFNA, ΔAA, and ΔCA was analysed by the Pearson correlation test.


At baseline, in Group-A, there was a significant difference between arthritic FNA and normal hip FNA, while no differences were found in AA between the two hips. A close correlation was observed between ΔFNA and Spine-VAS (r = 0.788), ODI (r = 0.824), and RM (r = 0.775). In Group-B, there was not a significant difference in FNA and AA between the two hips. At recruitment, in Group-A patients, we recorded a higher LL, SS, PI, SVA(C7), and a lower PT and T1-SPI compared with Group-B subjects. Six months after THR, in Group-A, an improvement of all clinical scores was recorded, as well as, a significant reduction of SS, LL, T1PA, and SVA(C7) and an increment of PT. In Group-B, at follow-up, an improvement of HHS, Hip-VAS, and SF-36 was recorded, while the changes in spinopelvic parameters were not significant.


Patients with concomitant unilateral HOA and LBP showed a marked anteverted FNA in the arthritic hip and a spinopelvic misalignment. After THR, a relief of both hip and low back pain and a change in spinopelvic parameters is observed.


Spinopelvic alignment Low back pain Hip flexion Hip-spine syndrome Acetabular anteversion 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Zhang Y, Jordan JM (2010) Epidemiology of Osteoarthritis. Clin Geriatr Med 26(3):355–369CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deyo RA, Dworkin SF, Amtmann D et al (2014) Focus article: report of the NIH task force on research standards for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 23:2028–2045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chimenti PC, Drinkwater CJ, Li W et al (2016) Factors associated with early improvement in low back pain after total hip arthroplasty: a multi-center prospective cohort analyses. J Arthrop 31:176–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Staibano P, Winemaker M, Petruccelli D et al (2014) Total joint arthroplasty and preoperative low back pain. J Arthroplasty 29(5):867CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Offierski CM, MacNab I (1983) Hip-spine syndrome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8:316–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weng WJ, Wang WJ, Wu MD et al (2015) Characteristics of sagittal spine–pelvis–leg alignment in patients with severe hip osteoarthritis. Eur Spine J 24:1228–1236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ben-Galim P, Ben-Galim T, Rand N et al (2007) Hip-Spine Syndrome. The Effect of Total Hip Replacement Surgery on Low Back Pain in Severe Osteoarthritis of the Hip. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(19):2099–2102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eyvazov K, Eyvazov B, Basar S et al (2016) Effects of total hip arthroplasty on spinal sagittal alignment and static balance: a prospective study on 28 patients. Eur Spine J. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4696-9 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Terjesen T, Benum P, Anda Svein et al (1982) Increased femoral anteversion and osteoarthritis of the hip joint. Acta Orthop Scand 53(4):571–575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zandi B, Hozhabri H (2015) Correlation between femoral neck anteversion in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and normal controls. Patient Saf Qual Improv. 3(2):206–210Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turmezei TD, Fotiadou A, Lomas DJ et al (2014) A new CT grading system for hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 22(10):1360–1366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hernandez RJ, Tachdjian MO, Poznanski AK et al (1981) CT determination of femoral torsion. AJR 137:97–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reikeråls O, Bjerkreim I, Kolbenstvedt A (1983) Anteversion of the Acetabulum and Femoral Neck in Normals and in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Hip. Acta Orthop Scand 54(1):18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morvan G, Mathieu P, Vuillemin V et al (2011) Standardized way for imaging of the sagittal spinal balance. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 5):S602–S608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Legaye J (2005) Duval-Beaupere G Sagittal plane alignment of the spine and gravity: a radiological and clinical evaluation. Acta Orthop Belg 71:213–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boulay C, Tardieu C, Hecquet J et al (2006) Sagittal alignment of spine and pelvis regulated by pelvic incidence: standard values and prediction of lordosis. Eur Spine J 15(4):415–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Legaye J, Duval-Beaupere G, Hecquet J et al (1998) Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J 7:99–103CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Obeid I, Hauger O, Aunoble S et al (2011) Global analysis of sagittal spinal alignment in major deformities: correlation between lack of lumbar lordosis and flexion of the knee. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 5):681–685CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vaz G, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2002) Sagittal morphology and equilibrium of pelvis and spine. Eur Spine J 11(1):80–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chaleat-Valayer E, Mac-Thiong JM, Paquet J et al (2011) Sagittal spino-pelvic alignment in chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 5):634–640CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roussouly P, Pinheiro-Franco JL (2011) Biomechanical analysis of the spino-pelvic organization and adaptation in pathology. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 5):609–618CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mangione P, Gomez D, Senegas J (1997) Study of the course of the incidence angle during growth. Eur Spine J 6:163–167CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mac-Thiong JM, Labelle H, Berthonnaud E et al (2007) Sagittal spinopelvic balance in normal children and adolescents. Eur Spine J 16:227–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barrey C, Roussouly P, Perrin G et al (2011) Sagittal balance disorders in severe degenerative spine. Can we identify the compensatory mechanisms? Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 5):626–633CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weng W, Wu H, Wu M et al (2016) The effect of total hip arthroplasty on sagittal spinal-pelvic-leg alignment and low back pain in patients with severe hip osteoarthritis. Eur Spine J 25(11):3608–3614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yoshimoto H, Sato S, Masuda T et al (2005) Spinopelvic alignment in patients with osteoarthrosis of the hip: a radiographic comparison to patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1650–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lafage V, Schwab F, Vira S et al (2011) Does vertebral level of pedicle subtraction osteotomy correlate with degree of spinopelvic parameter correction? J Neurosurg Spine 14(2):184–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Buckland AJ, Vigdorchik J, Schwab FJ et al (2015) Acetabular anteversion changes due to spinal deformity correction: bridging the gap between hip and spine surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:1913–1920CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gulan G, Matovinović D, Nemec B et al (2000) Femoral neck anteversion: values, development, measurement, common problems. Coll Antropol 24(2):521B–527BGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cibulka MT, Sinacore DR, Cromer GS et al (1998) Unilateral hip rotation range of motion asymmetry in patients with sacroiliac joint regional pain. Spine (Phila PA 1976) 23:1009–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tanakaa S, Matsumotoa S, Fujii K et al (2015) Factors related to low back pain in patients with hip osteoarthritis. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 28:409–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schwab F, Lafage V, Patel A et al (2009) Sagittal plane considerations and the pelvis in the adult patient. Spine (Phila PA 1976) 34:1828–1833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Le Huec JC, Aunoble S, Philippe L et al (2011) Pelvic parameters: origin and significance. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 5):564–571CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aurouer N, Obeid I, Gille O et al (2009) Computerized preoperative planning for correction of sagittal deformity of the spine. Surg Radiol Anat 31:781–792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Le Huec JC, Hasegawa K (2016) Normative values for the spine shape parameters using 3D standing analysis from a database of 268 asymptomatic Caucasian and Japanese subjects. Eur Spine J 25:3630–3637CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of MedicineUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro, AOU Consorziale Policlinico, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Neuroscience and Sense Organs, Orthopaedic, Trauma and Spine UnitBariItaly
  2. 2.GSpine4, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico GaleazziMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations