Skip to main content

Table 3 Analysis of spinopelvic complex elements lumbar flexibility (∆ LL = LLstanding − LLsitting), pelvic mobility (∆ PT = PTstanding − PTsitting) and hip motion (∆ PFA = PFAstanding − PFAsitting) and spinopelvic parameter LL, APPT, PT, PFA and PI in standing position according to the BMI: group 1: ≥ 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 (n = 68), group 2: ≥ 25.0–29.9 kg/m2 (n = 81) and group 3: ≥ 30–39.9 kg/m2 (n = 41) postoperatively

From: Does obesity affect acetabular cup position, spinopelvic function and sagittal spinal alignment? A prospective investigation with standing and sitting assessment of primary hip arthroplasty patients

BMI groups  ≥ 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 Postoperative mean (± SD)  ≥ 25.0–29.9 kg/m2 Postoperative mean (± SD)  ≥ 30–39.9 kg/m2 Postoperative mean (± SD) p-value (#1) p-value (#2) p-value (#3)
Postoperative spinopelvic parameter according to the BMI
∆ LL (°) 25.7 (13.5) 26.0 (11.3) 25.0 (12.1) .998 .959 .986
∆ PT (°) 22.6 (10.4) 23.0 (9.8) 21.7 (10.4) .992 .874 .960
∆ PFA (°) 50.7 (14.0) 50.7 (12.6) 51.1 (11.4) 1.0 .998 .999
LL stand (°) 55.0 (13.4) 50.6 (12.8) 51.2 (15.9) .153 .994 .418
PT stand (°) 10.6 (8.7) 10.6 (8.2) 13.7 (7.8) 1.0 .139 .162
PFA stand (°) 175.3 (11.1) 175.6 (8.8) 176.6 (7.8) .998 .933 .887
APPT stand (°) 4.9 (6.7) 2.1 (7.7) 0.7 (8.6) .089 .690 .018
PI stand (°) 54.7 (13.3) 51.5 (11.7) 51.1 (11.4) .332 .098 .811
  1. P-values indicating differences between groups 1and 2 (#1), groups 2 and 3 (#2) and groups 1 and 3 (#3). ANOVA and post-hoc analysis according to Hochberg´s GT2 were used and level of significance set at p < 0.05, significant values were marked in bold. SD = standard deviation