Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 17, 2026
Quantification of Levator Ani Hiatus Enlargement by Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Males and Females with Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Published on: April 17, 2019
Measuring extension of the lumbar-pelvic-femoral complex with the EOS® system
J Y Lazennec1, A Brusson, D Folinais
1Service de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologie de l'hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, 47 bd de l'hôpital, 75013, Paris, France, lazennec.jy@wanadoo.fr.
Introduction:
Sagittal balance of the coxofemoral joint in standing position and its extension capacity determine hip/spine adaptation, especially in relation to pelvic retroversion, which may be age-associated or follow either spinal arthrodesis or vertebral osteotomies. The concept of extension reserve is essential for assessing posterior hip impingement. The global visualization of the lumbar-pelvic-femoral complex obtained by EOS(®) imaging enables this sagittal analysis of both the subpelvic region and lumbar spine by combining the reference standing position and the possibility of dynamic tests.
Materials And Methods:
We studied 46 patients and their 92 hips. The EOS(®) radiography was performed in neutral standing position and with one foot on a step, alternately the right and left feet. Pelvic incidence, sacral slope, pelvic version, and femoral version were measured twice by two operators. The global extension reserve (GER) was defined by the sum of the intrinsic extension reserve (allowed by the hips, IER) and the extrinsic extension reserve (allowed by the spine, EER). The IER for each hip corresponds to the difference in the sacrofemoral angle (SFA) for each of the two positions. The EER was measured by the difference in the sacral slope. A descriptive study was performed, together with studies of inter- and intra-observer reproducibility, right/left symmetry, and an analysis according to age, sex, and BMI.
Results:
The mean femoral version in the reference position was 11.7° (SD 14.3°). The reproducibility of the SFA measurement was statistically verified. The IER (mean 8.8°), EER (mean -0.7°), and GER (mean 8.2°) all differed significantly between the two sides for each patient and were not associated with age, sex, or BMI.
Discussion:
The femoral axis is not perpendicular to the ground in neutral position, contrary to the conventional view of this position. The measurements proposed for dynamic sagittal analysis of the hip are reproducible and make it possible to identify the IER within the GER of the spinal-pelvic-femoral complex.
Conclusion:
The assessment of the lumbar-pelvic-femoral complex by EOS imaging makes it possible to define the intrinsic and extrinsic extension reserves to describe the reciprocal adaptive capacities of the hips and spine.
Level Of Evidence:
IV.
