Portable Gait Analysis of Patients With Rotating Hinge Knee Megaprosthesis Compared With Total Knee Arthroplasty

Overview

Journal Orthop Surg

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2024 Nov 6

PMID 39501823

Authors

Ming-Yong Gu

Jing-Yu Zhang

Meng-Yu Chen

Wei Wang

Ji-Bin Ma

Xuefei Fu

Yan-Cheng Liu

Jun Miao

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The gait analysis of patients after surgery for tumors around the knee joint relies on the use of a three-dimensional motion capture system. However, obtaining long-term, free-standing, real-world gait data with three-dimensional gait analysis is challenging. In this study, we utilized a portable gait analyzer to collect gait data from patients who underwent rotating hinge knee megaprosthesis (RHK) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA), this study aims to compare via gait analysis patients who underwent megaprosthesis with patients with TKA.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on eight patients with knee bone tumors (RHK group) and ten patients with knee osteoarthritis who underwent standard TKA (TKA group) from January 2018 to January 2022. Gait analysis, was conducted using the Intelligent Device for Energy Expenditure and Activity (IDEEA), and the results were compared with those of a healthy control group. The lower limb alignment of the RHK and TKA groups was evaluated, and the KSS scores of the two groups were collected and compared. Energy consumption during a 20-m walk was measured and compared among the RHK, TKA, and healthy control groups using one-way ANOVA. Paired t-tests were used to compare the operated and nonoperated limbs within groups.

Results: All patients exhibited slower walking speeds and cadence than the healthy control participants (p < 0.01), While no significant differences were found between the RHK and TKA groups. The single support time (521.15 ± 94.56 ms) of the RHK-operated limb was significantly shorter than that of the nonoperated limb (576.53 ± 77.40 ms, p = 0.004). The pulling acceleration of the RHK group (0.71 ± 0.27 G) was lower than that of the TKA group (1.04 ± 0.31 G, p = 0.029). The push-off angle in the RHK group (24.91° ± 10.91°) was significantly greater than that in the TKA group (10.64° ± 5.41°, p = 0.007). The RHK group showed significant differences between the operated and nonoperated limbs in terms of swing power, ground impact, footfall, and push-off. The RHK (0.03 ± 0.01 kcal/min/kg) and TKA (0.029 ± 0.01 kcal/min/kg) groups had significantly greater energy expenditures than did the healthy control group (0.02 ± 0.00 kcal/min/kg, p < 0.05). The comparison of HKA angles and KSS scores between the TKA and RHK groups showed statistically significant differences.

Conclusion: A portable gait analyzer appears to be suitable for evaluating the effects of RHK. RHK patients demonstrate more pronounced gait abnormalities than TKA patients, reflected in greater energy expenditure, implying reduced walking efficiency. This suggests the need for increased energy expenditure in RHK patients to compensate for abnormal knee joint conditions during walking and maintain body balance.

References

Simon S, Trieshmann H, Burdett R, Ewald F, Sledge C . Quantitative gait analysis after total knee arthroplasty for monarticular degenerative arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983; 65(5):605-13. View

Lietman S, Joyce M . Bone sarcomas: Overview of management, with a focus on surgical treatment considerations. Cleve Clin J Med. 2010; 77 Suppl 1:S8-12. DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.77.s1.02. View

Sun J, Liu Y, Yan S, Cao G, Wang S, Lester D . Clinical gait evaluation of patients with knee osteoarthritis. Gait Posture. 2017; 58:319-324. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.08.009. View

Berman A, ZARRO V, Bosacco S, Israelite C . Quantitative gait analysis after unilateral or bilateral total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987; 69(9):1340-5. View

Bruns J, Raabe K, Deuretzbacher G . Gait analysis in tumor patients after distal femoral resection and implantation of a megaprosthesis. Acta Orthop Belg. 2016; 82(2):287-297. View

Anderson F, Goldberg S, Pandy M, Delp S . Contributions of muscle forces and toe-off kinematics to peak knee flexion during the swing phase of normal gait: an induced position analysis. J Biomech. 2004; 37(5):731-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2003.09.018. View

Maffiuletti N, Gorelick M, Kramers-de Quervain I, Bizzini M, Munzinger J, Tomasetti S . Concurrent validity and intrasession reliability of the IDEEA accelerometry system for the quantification of spatiotemporal gait parameters. Gait Posture. 2007; 27(1):160-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.01.003. View

Okita Y, Tatematsu N, Nagai K, Nakayama T, Nakamata T, Okamoto T . The effect of walking speed on gait kinematics and kinetics after endoprosthetic knee replacement following bone tumor resection. Gait Posture. 2014; 40(4):622-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.07.012. View

Zhang K, Pi-Sunyer F, Boozer C . Improving energy expenditure estimation for physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004; 36(5):883-9. DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000126585.40962.22. View

10.

de Groot I, Bussmann H, Stam H, Verhaar J . Small increase of actual physical activity 6 months after total hip or knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466(9):2201-8. PMC: 2492989. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0315-3. View

11.

Andriacchi T, Ogle J, Galante J . Walking speed as a basis for normal and abnormal gait measurements. J Biomech. 1977; 10(4):261-8. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(77)90049-5. View

12.

Kim S, Ryu C, Jung S . Differences in Kinematic and Kinetic Patterns According to the Bone Tumor Location after Endoprosthetic Knee Replacement Following Bone Tumor Resection: A Comparative Gait Analysis between Distal Femur and Proximal Tibia. J Clin Med. 2021; 10(18). PMC: 8471792. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10184100. View

13.

Carty C, Dickinson I, Watts M, Crawford R, Steadman P . Impairment and disability following limb salvage procedures for bone sarcoma. Knee. 2009; 16(5):405-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.02.006. View

14.

Ornetti P, Maillefert J, Laroche D, Morisset C, Dougados M, Gossec L . Gait analysis as a quantifiable outcome measure in hip or knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Joint Bone Spine. 2010; 77(5):421-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2009.12.009. View

15.

Carty C, Bennett M, Dickinson I, Steadman P . Electromyographic assessment of Gait function following limb salvage procedures for bone sarcoma. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2009; 20(3):502-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2009.06.001. View

16.

Du M, Sun J, Liu Y, Wang Y, Yan S, Zeng J . Tibio-Femoral Contact Force Distribution of Knee Before and After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Combined Finite Element and Gait Analysis. Orthop Surg. 2022; 14(8):1836-1845. PMC: 9363749. DOI: 10.1111/os.13361. View

17.

Fowler E, Eckardt J, Vuong A, Greenberg M, Yamaguchi K, Bukata S . Gait outcomes following proximal tibial tumor resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction. Gait Posture. 2021; 88:167-173. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.05.026. View

18.

Mackey A, Stott N, Walt S . Reliability and validity of an activity monitor (IDEEA) in the determination of temporal-spatial gait parameters in individuals with cerebral palsy. Gait Posture. 2008; 28(4):634-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.04.012. View

19.

Zhang H, Yan S, Fang C, Guo X, Zhang K . Clinical Evaluation and Gait Characteristics before and after Total Knee Arthroplasty Based on a Portable Gait Analyzer. Orthop Surg. 2016; 8(3):360-6. PMC: 6584463. DOI: 10.1111/os.12270. View

20.

Pellegrino P, Conti A, Pautasso A, Boffano M, Ratto N, Carlone M . Gait analysis: Comparative evaluation of conventional total knee replacement and modular distal femoral megaprosthesis. Knee. 2020; 27(5):1567-1576. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2020.08.004. View