No abstract

Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

This study evaluated between-session reliability of opto-electronic motion capture to measure trunk posture and three-dimensional ranges of motion (ROM). Nineteen healthy participants aged 24-74 years underwent spine curvature, pelvic tilt and trunk ROM measurements on two separate occasions. Rigid four-marker clusters were attached to the skin overlying seven spinous processes, plus single markers on pelvis landmarks. Rigid body rotations of spine marker clusters were calculated to determine neutral posture and ROM in flexion, extension, total lateral bending (left-right) and total axial rotation (left-right). Segmental spine ROM values were in line with previous reports using opto-electronic motion capture. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were calculated as measures of between-session reliability and measurement error, respectively. Retroreflective markers showed fair to excellent between-session reliability to measure thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, and pelvic tilt (ICC = 0.82, 0.63, and 0.54, respectively). Thoracic and lumbar segments showed highest reliabilities in total axial rotation (ICC = 0.78) and flexion-extension (ICC = 0.77-0.79) ROM, respectively. Pelvic segment showed highest ICC values in flexion (ICC = 0.78) and total axial rotation (ICC = 0.81) trials. Furthermore, it was estimated that four or fewer repeated trials would provide good reliability for key ROM outcomes, including lumbar flexion, thoracic and lumbar lateral bending, and thoracic axial rotation. This demonstration of reliability is a necessary precursor to quantifying spine kinematics in clinical studies, including assessing changes due to clinical treatment or disease progression.

Level III.

Total hip arthroplasty remains one of the most successful interventions in orthopaedic practice. However, complications can be devastating and costly. Recurrent dislocation is the most common reason for, and failure of, revision total hip arthroplasty. It is incumbent upon the treating surgeon to be familiar with up-to-date literature on patient risk stratification, surgical techniques, and implant technology to maximize successful patient outcomes and minimize instability after total hip arthroplasty and the attendant burdens to both the patient and treating institution.