Hip range of motion during daily activities in patients with posterior pelvic tilt from supine to standing position

Specific pelvic shape in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip on 3D morphometric homologous model analysis

PURPOSE

To clarify the morphological factors of the pelvis in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), three-dimensional (3D) pelvic morphology was analyzed using a template-fitting technique.

METHODS

Three-dimensional pelvic data of 50 patients with DDH (DDH group) and 3D pelvic data of 50 patients without obvious pelvic deformity (Normal group) were used. All patients were female. A template model was created by averaging the normal pelvises into a symmetrical and isotropic mesh. Next, 100 homologous models were generated by fitting the pelvic data of each group of patients to the template model. Principal component analysis was performed on the coordinates of each vertex (15,235 vertices) of the pelvic homologous model. In addition, a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated from the sensitivity of DDH positivity for each principal component, and principal components for which the area under the curve was significantly large were extracted (p<0.05). Finally, which components of the pelvic morphology frequently seen in DDH patients are related to these extracted principal components was evaluated.

RESULTS

The first, third, and sixth principal components showed significantly larger areas under the ROC curves. The morphology indicated by the first principal component was associated with a decrease in coxal inclination in both the coronal and horizontal planes. The third principal component was related to the sacral inclination in the sagittal plane. The sixth principal component was associated with narrowing of the superior part of the pelvis.

CONCLUSION

The most important factor in the difference between normal and DDH pelvises was the change in the coxal angle in both the coronal and horizontal planes. That is, in the anterior and superior views, the normal pelvis is a triangle, whereas in DDH, it was more like a quadrilateral.

Effect of hip flexion contracture on the pelvic sagittal tilt in the supine position: A retrospective case-series study

OBJECTIVES

The functional pelvic plane, which adopts the natural pelvic sagittal tilt in the supine position, is a good reference for determining the cup angle in total hip arthroplasty. However, hip flexion contracture may change pelvic tilt postoperatively by the release of contracture. This study investigated the influence of hip flexion contracture on pelvic sagittal tilt in the supine position.

METHODS

This study included 300 patients who underwent primary unilateral total hip arthroplasty. We divided the participants into two groups: with a preoperative hip extension angle of <0° (hip flexion contracture group) and without (non-contracture group). The pelvic sagittal tilt and femoral flexion angle were investigated using computed tomography or pelvic radiographs performed preoperatively and postoperatively.

RESULTS

The femoral flexion angle had significantly reduced postoperatively in the hip flexion contracture group but remained unchanged in the non-contracture group. The preoperative and postoperative pelvic sagittal tilt showed no significant differences between the two groups up to 1 year postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The influence of hip flexion contracture on the pelvic sagittal tilt in the supine position was minimal. The functional pelvic plane in the supine position could be a good reference to ascertain the cup orientation, even in hip flexion contracture cases.

What Changes in Pelvic Sagittal Tilt Occur 20 Years After THA?

BACKGROUND

Cup orientation in THA in the supine, standing, and sitting positions is affected by pelvic sagittal tilt (PT). Patterns of PT shift between these positions may increase the risk of dislocation and edge loading. The PT has also been reported to change during the aging process; however, there is limited research regarding long-term changes in PT and PT shifts after THA.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What changes occur in PT in the supine, standing, and sitting positions during 20 years of follow-up after THA in patients who have not had revision or dislocation? (2) What factors are associated with the differences between preoperative supine PT and postoperative sitting or standing PT (Δ sitting and Δ standing, respectively) 20 years postoperatively?

METHODS

Between January 1998 and December 1999, 101 consecutive patients underwent THA for appropriate indications. AP radiographs of the pelvis in the supine, standing, and sitting positions preoperatively and at 1, 10, and 20 years after THA were longitudinally performed to evaluate changes in PT. Fifty-nine percent (60 of 101) of patients were lost before 20 years of follow-up or had incomplete sets of imaging tests, leaving 41% (41 of 101) eligible for analysis here. There were no patients who had recurrent dislocation or underwent revision arthroplasty in the cohort; therefore, this analysis regarding postoperative changes in PT indicates the natural course of the change in PT during follow-up of THA. PT was measured based on the anterior pelvic plane. PT shifts with positional changes, Δ standing, and Δ sitting during the follow-up period were calculated. Posterior changes and shifts are represented by negative values. To analyze the factors associated with Δ standing and Δ sitting after 20 years, the correlations between these parameters and preoperative factors (including sex, age, pelvic incidence [PI], lumbar lordosis [LL], preoperative PT, and preoperative PT shift) and postoperative factors (including the occurrence of new lumbar vertebral fractures, lumbar spondylolisthesis, contralateral THA performed during follow-up, and PI-LL 20 years after THA) were determined.

RESULTS

Median (IQR) supine and standing PTs changed (moved posteriorly) by -5° (-11° to -2°; p < 0.01) and -10° (-15° to -7°; p < 0.01), respectively. Sitting PT did not change during the 20-year follow-up period. Median (IQR) PT shift from standing to sitting changed from -34° preoperatively (-40° to -28°) to -23° after 20 years (-28° to -20°). There were posterior changes in median (range) Δ standing (median -12° at 20 years [-19° to -7°]); Δ sitting did not change during the follow-up period (median -36° at 20 years [-40° to -29°]). Patients with a large preoperative posterior PT shift from supine to standing demonstrated larger posterior tilt of Δ standing at 20 years. Patients with lumbar vertebral fractures during follow-up demonstrated larger posterior tilt of Δ standing at 20 years.

CONCLUSION

Patients who demonstrate a large preoperative posterior shift from supine to standing deserve special consideration when undergoing THA. In such circumstances, we recommend that the anteversion of the cup not be excessive, given that there is a relatively high risk of further posterior tilt in PT, which may lead to anterior dislocation and edge loading. Further longitudinal study in a larger cohort of patients with complications including postoperative dislocation and revision, as well as older patients, is needed to verify these assumptions on the potential risk for dislocation and edge loading after THA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Implications of the uncertainty of postoperative functional parameters for the preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty

The functional parameters pelvic tilt (PT) and hip joint force (HJF) are required to calculate patient-specific target zones based on the range of motion (ROM) and implant loading for preoperative planning of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Both functional parameters may change after THA. The preoperative prediction of the postoperative PT and HJF is associated with a specific amount of uncertainty. The prediction uncertainty has to be considered in the preoperative planning process to avoid a suboptimal implantation. So far, very little attention has been paid to the necessary reduction of patient-specific target zones by the prediction uncertainties of postoperative functional parameters. Prediction models for the postoperative PT in standing position and for the HJF during one-leg stance as a surrogate for the peak force phase during level walking were used to quantify the reduction of the ROM- and load-based target zones of 196 Japanese THA patients. The prediction uncertainty was about 14° for the postoperative standing PT and ranged from 17% body weight to 37% body weight for the components of the HJF. On average, the prosthetic ROM-based target zone had to be significantly reduced by 43% and the load-based target zone by 39%. This led to a median reduction of the combined prosthetic ROM- and load-based target zone of 96%. The study sharpens the awareness for the substantial reduction of ROM- and load-based target zones by prediction uncertainties of the postoperative PT and HJF and highlights the importance of further research to improve prediction models for both functional parameters.

Quantification of femoral position on radiographic acetabular coverage in children

An accurate assessment of the radiographic acetabular coverage is essential for clinical diagnosis or surgical decision-making in hip disorders. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of femoral position on acetabular coverage and to predict the actual acetabular coverage from nonstandard radiographs. A total of 21 children (34 hips) with normative acetabular coverage were screened in this retrospective study. The Mimics-based local-rotation fluoroscopy simulation method was used to tilt, incline, and rotate the femur in 4° increments within the range of femoral motion. The acetabular coverage, namely acetabular-head index (AHI) and center-edge angle (CEA), increased with femoral abduction but decreased with other motions. Compared to the femoral neutral position, no significant differences were identified in AHI with the rotation (range: 0°-16°) and in CEA with the tilt (range: -20°-4°), inclination (range: 0°-4°), or rotation (range: -8°-40°). The linear regression analysis showed that the CEA increased by about 0.20° for each 1° increase in femoral inclination and decreased by about 0.01°, 0.07°, 0.06°, or 0.07° for each 1° increase in internal rotation, external rotation, flexion, or extension, respectively. And a more significant change in AHI was observed. All femoral malpositions, especially the inclination, affected radiographic acetabular coverage in children. Therefore, each pelvic radiograph should assess potential femoral malpositioning before diagnosing hip disorders. This study will assist surgeons in predicting the acetabular coverage on nonstandard radiographs.

Does spinopelvic motion change after total hip arthroplasty?

PURPOSE

Spinopelvic motion plays an important role in functional acetabular cup position after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Sacral slope (SS) has been a useful surrogate for spinopelvic motion. The present study aimed to investigate statistical characteristics of spinopelvic motion before and after THA using changes in SS in supine, standing, and sitting positions.

METHODS

A total of 76 patients (88 hips) were assessed. To classify spinopelvic mobility, defined as a change in SS from standing to sitting position (ΔSS_stand/sit), 10° ≤ ΔSS_stand/sit ≤ 30°, ΔSS_stand/sit < 10°, and ΔSS_stand/sit > 30° were considered normal, stiff, and hypermobile, respectively.

RESULTS

Over ± 7° changes in SS between before and one year after THA were observed in 39 (44.3%) hips in the sitting position, 19 (21.6%) hips in the supine position, seven (7.9%) in the standing position. Percentages of hips with stiff spinopelvic mobility (11.4% vs. 22.7%) and hypermobile spinopelvic mobility (23.9% vs. 12.5%) between before THA and one year after THA were significantly different (p = 0.034 and p = 0.016, McNemar's test). At one year after THA, 40.0% (4/10) of hips with stiff spinopelvic mobility and 57.1% (12/21) of hips with hypermobile spinopelvic mobility shifted to normal spinopelvic mobility.

CONCLUSIONS

Change in SS between before THA and one year after THA had a high inter-subject variability especially in the sitting position. In addition, there was a distinct shift to normal spinopelvic mobility postoperatively in hips with stiff and hypermobile spinopelvic mobility pre-operatively.

Small Random Angular Variations in Pelvic Tilt and Lower Extremity Can Cause Error in Static Image-based Preoperative Hip Arthroplasty Planning: A Computer Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

Many THA simulation models rely on a limited set of preoperative static radiographs to replicate sagittal pelvic tilt during functional positions and to recommend an implant orientation that minimizes the risk of prosthetic impingement. However, possible random changes in pelvic or lower extremity angular motions and the effect of coronal and axial pelvic tilt are not included in these preoperative models.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Can prosthetic impingement occur if the pelvic tilt or lower extremity alignment randomly varies up to ± 5° from what is measured on a single preoperative static radiographic image? (2) Do changes in coronal and axial pelvic tilt or lower extremity alignment angles have a similar effect on the risk of prosthetic impingement?

METHODS

A de-identified pelvis and lower-body CT image of a male patient without previous THA or lower extremity surgery was used to import the pelvis, femur, and tibia into a verified MATLAB computer model. The motions of standing, pivoting, sitting, sit-to-stand, squatting, and bending forward were simulated. THA implant components included a full hemispherical acetabular cup without an elevated rim, polyethylene liner without an elevated rim, femoral head (diameter: 28 mm, 32 mm, 36 mm, or 40 mm), and a triple-taper cementless stem with three different neck shaft angles (127°, 132°, or 135°) with a trapezoidal neck were used in this model. A static model (cup anatomical abduction 40°, cup anatomical anteversion 20°, stem anatomical anteversion 10°) with a predefined range of sagittal pelvic tilt and hip alignment (0° coronal or axial tilt, without random ± 5° change) was used to simulate each motion. We then randomly varied pelvic tilt in three different pelvic planes and hip alignments (flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, rotation) up to ± 5° and assessed the same motions without changing the implant's anatomical orientation. Prosthetic impingement as the endpoint was defined as mechanical abutment between the prosthetic neck and polyethylene liner. Multiple logistic regression was used to investigate the effect of variation in pelvic tilt and hip alignment (predictors) on prosthetic impingement (primary outcome).

RESULTS

The static-based model without the random variation did not result in any prosthetic impingement under any conditions. However, with up to ± 5° of random variation in the pelvic tilt and hip alignment angles, prosthetic impingement occurred in pivoting (18 possible combinations), sit-to-stand (106 possible combinations), and squatting (one possible combination) when a 28-mm or a 32-mm head was used. Variation in sagittal tilt (odds ratio 4.09 [95% CI 3.11 to 5.37]; p < 0.001), axial tilt (OR 3.87 [95% CI 2.96 to 5.07]; p < 0.001), and coronal tilt (OR 2.39 [95% CI 2.03 to 2.83]; p < 0.001) affected the risk of prosthetic impingement. Variation in hip flexion had a strong impact on the risk of prosthetic impingement (OR 4.11 [95% CI 3.38 to 4.99]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The combined effect of 2° to 3° of change in multiple pelvic tilt or hip alignment angles relative to what is measured on a single static radiographic image can result in prosthetic impingement. Relying on a few preoperative static radiographic images to minimize the risk of prosthetic impingement, without including femoral implant orientation, axial and coronal pelvic tilt, and random angular variation in pelvis and lower extremity alignment, may not be adequate and may fail to predict prosthetic impingement-free ROM.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Determining a safe zone for THA implant positioning with respect to impingement may require a dynamic computer simulation model to fully capture the range of possible impingement conditions. Future work should concentrate on devising simple and easily available methods for dynamic motion analysis instead of using a few static radiographs for preoperative planning.

How much change in pelvic sagittal tilt can result in hip dislocation due to prosthetic impingement? A computer simulation study

Developing spinal pathologies and spinal fusion after total hip arthroplasty (THA) can result in increased pelvic retroversion (e.g., flat back deformity) or increased anterior pelvic tilt (caused by spinal stenosis, spinal fusion or other pathologies) while bending forward. This change in sagittal pelvic tilt (SPT) can result in prosthetic impingement and dislocation. Our aim was to determine the magnitude of SPT change that could lead to prosthetic impingement. We hypothesized that the magnitude of SPT change that could lead to THA dislocation is less than 10° and it varies for different hip motions. Hip motion was simulated in standing, sitting, sit-to-stand, bending forward, squatting and pivoting in Matlab software. The implant orientations and SPT angle were modified by 1° increments. The risk of prosthetic impingement in pivoting caused by increased pelvic retroversion (reciever operating characteristic [ROC] threshold as low as 1-3°) is higher than the risk of prosthetic impingement with increased pelvic anteversion (ROC threshold as low as 16-18°). Larger femoral heads decrease the risk of prosthetic impingement (odds ratio {OR}: 0.08 [932 mm head]; OR: 0.01 [36 mm head]; OR: 0.002 [40 mm head]). Femoral stems with a higher neck-shaft angle decrease the prosthetic impingement due to SPT change in motions requiring hip flexion (OR: 1.16 [132° stem]; OR: 4.94 [135° stem]). Our results show that overall, the risk of prosthetic impingement due to SPT change is low. In particular, this risk is very low when a larger diameter head is used and femoral offset and length are recreated to prevent bone on bone impingement.

Preoperative factors improving the prediction of the postoperative sagittal orientation of the pelvis in standing position after total hip arthroplasty

The aims of this study were to investigate if the sagittal orientation of the pelvis (SOP) in the standing position changes after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and evaluate what preoperative factors may improve the prediction of the postoperative standing SOP in the context of a patient-specific functional cup orientation. 196 primary THA patients from Japan were retrospectively selected for this study. Computed tomography imaging of the pelvis, EOS imaging of the lower body and lateral radiographs of the lumbar spine in the standing position were taken preoperatively. Common biometrics and preoperative Harris Hip Score were recorded. The EOS imaging in the standing position was repeated three months following THA. A 3D/2.5D registration process was used to determine the standing SOP. Thirty-three preoperative biometric, morphological and functional parameters were measured. Important preoperative parameters were identified that significantly improve the prediction of the postoperative standing SOP by using multiple linear LASSO regression. On average, the SOP changed significantly (p < 0.001) between the preoperative and postoperative standing position three months after THA by 3° ± 4° in the posterior direction. The age, standing lumbar lordosis angle (LLA) and preoperative supine and standing SOP significantly (p < 0.001) improve the prediction of the postoperative standing SOP. The linear regression model for the prediction of the postoperative standing SOP is significantly (p < 0.001) improved by adding the parameters preoperative standing SOP and LLA, in addition to the preoperative supine SOP, reducing the root mean square error derived from a leave-one-out cross-validation by more than 1°. The mean standing SOP in Japanese patients changes already three months after THA in comparison to the preoperative value. The preoperative factors age, LLA, supine and standing SOP can significantly improve the prediction of the postoperative standing SOP and should be considered within the preoperative planning process of a patient-specific functional cup orientation.

Video rasterstereography of the spine and pelvis in eight erect positions: A reliability study

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the reliability and variability of Video Rasterstereography (VR) measurements of the spine and pelvis, for eight proposed standing postures, in order to help define an optimal standing position for erect pelvis radiography.

METHODS

Surface topography data were collected using the formetic 4D dynamic modelling (Diers) system. 61 healthy participants were recruited; each participant performed eight different standing positions. Four positions were performed with the feet shoulder width apart and parallel, and four positions were performed with the feet shoulder width apart and internally rotated. For the upper extremity, each of the (two sets of) four positions were performed with different arm positions (arms by the sides, arms crossed over the chest, arms 30° flexed and touching the medial end of the clavicle, arms 30° flexed with the hands holding a support). Three sets of surface topography were collected in the eight positions (n = 24). The variability was assessed by calculating standard error of the measurement (SEm) and the coefficient of variation (CV). Reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC ± 95% CI).

RESULTS

No significant differences in the SEm were found between the three paired measurements for all standing positions (P > 0.05). ICC values demonstrated excellent reliability for all measurements across the eight standing positions (range 0.879-1.00 [95% CI 0.813-1.00]).

CONCLUSION

Evaluating eight standing positions radiographically would be unethical as it would involve repeat radiation exposures. Using the formetic 4D dynamic modelling (Diers) system, provides an alternative and has shown that there was only a minimal, non-statistically significant, differences between the eight different standing positions.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

Different standing positions were proposed for erect pelvis radiography.

Effect of Pelvic Tilt and Rotation on Cup Orientation in Both Supine and Standing Positions

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of pelvic tilt and rotation on radiographic measurement of cup orientation.

METHODS

A total of 68 patients (79 hips) were included in this study. The patients had a computed tomography study and approximately 3 months of postoperative standing anteroposterior pelvic radiographs in both supine and standing positions. We used 2-dimensional (2D)/3-dimensional (3D) matching to measure pelvic tilt and rotation, and cup orientation.

RESULTS

There was a wide range of pelvic tilt between individuals in both supine and standing positions. Supine pelvic tilt was different from standing pelvic tilt (P < .05). There were differences in cup anteversion before and after 2D/3D matching in both supine and standing positions (P < .05). Supine and standing pelvic tilt correlated with differences in cup anteversion before and after 2D/3D matching. When all 79 hips were separated into right and left side, pelvic rotation inversely correlated with the pelvic tilt-adjusted difference in anteversion before and after 2D/3D matching of the right side but directly correlated with that of the left side in both supine and standing positions.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the measurement of cup anteversion on anteroposterior radiographs is significantly affected by both pelvic tilt and pelvic rotation (depending on the side). Improved understanding of pelvic orientation and improved ability to measure pelvic orientation may eventually allow for desired cup positioning to potentially protect against complications associated with malposition of the cup.

Does Pelvic Sagittal Inclination in the Supine and Standing Positions Change Over 10 Years of Follow-Up After Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Functional anteversion and inclination of the cup change as the pelvic sagittal inclination (PSI) changes. The purposes of this study were to investigate the chronological changes of PSI during a 10-year follow-up period after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and to report the characteristics of patients who showed a greater than 10° change in the PSI from the supine to the standing position.

METHODS

The subjects were 70 patients who were followed up for 10 years after THA. PSI values in the supine and standing positions were measured by 2D-3D matching using computed tomography images and pelvic radiographs. PSI values before THA and 1, 5, and 10 years after THA were compared in both the supine and standing positions.

RESULTS

Supine PSI showed less than 5° of change, whereas standing PSI showed a significant decrease with time over the 10-year period. Although 43% of patients with less than 10° of difference in the PSI between the supine and standing positions before THA increased PSI posteriorly (reclining) more than 10° in standing from the supine position at 10 years, no late dislocation was observed.

CONCLUSION

Supine PSI showed no significant change, but standing PSI showed a significant increase posteriorly with time over a 10-year period. However, this PSI change did not reach the level that it caused negative consequences such as late dislocation. The pelvic position in the supine position might still be a good functional reference position of the pelvis for aiming to achieve proper cup alignment at 10 years.

Does Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease Influence Femoroacetabular Flexion in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Sitting pelvic tilt dictates the proximity of the rim of the acetabulum to the proximal femur and, therefore, the risk of impingement in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). Sitting position is achieved through a combination of lumbar spine segmental motions and/or femoroacetabular articular motion in the lumbar-pelvic-femoral complex. Multilevel degenerative disc disease (DDD) may limit spine flexion and therefore increase femoroacetabular flexion in patients having THAs, but this has not been well characterized. Therefore, we measured standing and sitting lumbar-pelvic-femoral alignment in patients with radiographic signs of DDD and in patients with no radiographic signs of spine arthrosis.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked: (1) Is there a difference in standing and sitting lumbar-pelvic-femoral alignment before surgery among patients undergoing THA who have no radiographic signs of spine arthrosis compared with those with preexisting lumbar DDD? (2) Do patients with lumbar DDD experience less spine flexion moving from a standing to a sitting position and therefore compensate with more femoroacetabular flexion compared with patients who have no radiographic signs of arthrosis?

METHODS

Three hundred twenty-five patients undergoing primary THA had preoperative low-dose EOS spine-to-ankle lateral radiographs in standing and sitting positions. Eighty-three patients were excluded from this study for scoliosis (39 patients), spondylolysis (15 patients), not having five lumbar vertebrae (7 patients), surgical or disease fusion (11 patients), or poor image quality attributable to high BMI (11 patients). In the remaining 242 of 325 patients (75%), two observers categorized the lumbar spine as either without radiographic arthrosis or having DDD based on defined radiographic criteria. Sacral slope, lumbar lordosis, and proximal femur angles were measured, and these angles were used to calculate lumbar spine flexion and femoroacetabular flexion in standing and sitting positions. Patients were aligned in a standardized sitting position so that their femurs were parallel to the floor to achieve approximately 90° of apparent hip flexion.

RESULTS

After controlling for age, sex, and BMI, we found patients with DDD spines had a mean of 5° more posterior pelvic tilt (95% CI, -2° to -8° lower sacral slope angles; p < 0.01) and 7° less lumbar lordosis (95% CI, -10° to -3°; p < 0.01) in the standing position compared with patients without radiographic arthrosis. However, in the sitting position, patients with DDD spines had 4° less posterior pelvic tilt (95% CI, 1°-7° higher sacral slope angles; p = 0.02). From standing to sitting position, patients with DDD spines experienced 10° less spine flexion (95% CI, -14° to -7°; p < 0.01) and 10° more femoroacetabular flexion (95% CI, 6° to 14°; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients undergoing THA sit in a similar range of pelvic tilt, with a small mean difference in pelvic tilt between patients with DDD spines and those without radiographic arthrosis. However, in general, the mechanism by which patients with DDD of the lumbar spine achieve sitting differs from those without spine arthrosis with less spine flexion and more femoroacetabular flexion.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

When planning THA, it may be important to consider which patients sit with less posterior pelvic tilt and those who rotate their pelvises forward to achieve a sitting position, as both mechanisms will limit or reduce the functional anteversion of the acetabular component in a patient with a THA. Our study provides some additional perspective on normal relationships between pelvic tilt and femoroacetabular flexion, but further research might better characterize this relationship in outliers and the possible implications for posterior instability after THA.