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