Aims. The aims of this study were to describe the prevalence of previous lumbar surgery in patients who undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA) and to investigate their patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) one year post-operatively. Patients and Methods. Data from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register and the Swedish Spine Register gathered from 2002 to 2013 were merged to identify a group of patients who had undergone lumbar surgery before THA (n = 997) and a carefully matched one-to-one control group. We investigated differences in the one-year post-operative PROMs between the groups. Linear regression analyses were used to explore the associations between previous lumbar surgery and these PROMs following THA. The prevalence of prior lumbar surgery was calculated as the ratio of patients identified with previous lumbar surgery between 2002 and 2012, and divided by the total number of patients who underwent a THA in 2012. Results. The prevalence of lumbar surgery prior to THA in 2012 was 3.5% (351 of 10 082). Linear regression analyses showed an association with more pain (B = 4.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.57 to 6.12), worse EuroQol (EQ)-5D index, (B = -0.089, 95% CI -0.112 to -0.066), worse EQ VAS (B = -6.75, 95% CI -8.58 to -4.92), and less satisfaction (B = 6.04, 95% CI 4.05 to 8.02). Conclusion. Lumbar spinal surgery prior to THA is associated with less reduction of pain, worse health-related quality of life, and less satisfaction one year after THA. This is useful information to share in the decision-making process and may help establish realistic expectations of the outcomes of THA in patients who also have previously undergone lumbar spinal surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:759–65

Introduction. With resumption of non-urgent surgery in May 2020, standard anesthesia for hip arthroscopy switched from general with endotracheal intubation (GA) to spinal (SA) in response to COVID-19 implications; reducing potential aerosolized exposure for patient and staff and reducing consumption of personal protective equipment (PPE). There are no studies that compare the attributes for these two anesthesia methods for hip arthroscopy; and thus, this was viewed as an opportunity to perform a comparative observational study on SA to a recent matched group of GA. Methods. Beginning in May 2020, SA became the standard for hip arthroscopy. GA was used if the patient refused SA or had a history of previous lumbar spinal surgery, or body mass index (BMI) greater than 35. SA patients were carefully matched for age, gender and procedure to a recent previous GA population and compared for recovery room (RR) length of stay, entry and discharge visual analog scores (VAS), morphine mg equivalent (MME) usage, and untoward events. Additionally, SA and GA cases performed since May 2020 were compared for the length of time from entry to the operating room (OR) until the surgeon was able to perform an examination under anesthesia (EUA). Results. Statistical analysis determined that these groups are too small (46 in each group) to establish significant differences, but the authors felt that an opportunity to explore this, based on a recent change out of necessity (COVID-!9), was worth presenting as a novel study to compare two accepted methods of anesthesia for hip arthroscopy. SA patients required fewer regional blocks (7 vs 1) and needed less narcotics (99 vs 153). As a potential advantage of SA, continued investigation to see if this reaches statistical significance is meaningful. SA patients did spend more time in the PACU (136 vs 133); and had more problems with urinary retention, requiring catheterization (5 vs 0); but most of these occurred early in the experience and was corrected by having the patient void immediately prior to transfer to the OR and avoiding anticholinergic medications. SA seemed to add only slightly to the length of time until the surgeon could perform an EUA and begin positioning for the procedure (9 vs 8). Conclusion. Hip arthroscopy can be effectively performed with either GA or SA. Of particular interest with further studies will be whether choice of anesthesia affects early postoperative rehabilitation

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of a patient-specific algorithm which we developed for predicting changes in sagittal pelvic tilt after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

Patients with spinal pathology who undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA) have an increased risk of dislocation and revision. The aim of this study was to determine if the use of the Hip-Spine Classification system in these patients would result in a decreased rate of postoperative dislocation in patients with spinal pathology.

Aims

Patients may present with concurrent symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, with surgical treatment being indicated for both. Whether arthroplasty of the hip or spinal surgery should be performed first remains uncertain.

The interaction between the lumbosacral spine and the pelvis is dynamically related to positional change, and may be complicated by co-existing pathology. This review summarises the current literature examining the effect of sagittal spinal deformity on pelvic and acetabular orientation during total hip arthroplasty (THA) and provides recommendations to aid in placement of the acetabular component for patients with co-existing spinal pathology or long spinal fusions. Pre-operatively, patients can be divided into four categories based on the flexibility and sagittal balance of the spine. Using this information as a guide, placement of the acetabular component can be optimal based on the type and significance of co-existing spinal deformity.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1017–23.