4.6 Article

A Comparison of Walking Gait Following Mechanical and Kinematic Alignment in Total Knee Joint Replacement

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY
Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 560-564

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.09.031

Keywords

knee; arthroplasty; replacement; walking; gait

Categories

Funding

  1. New Zealand Wishbone Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Although previous studies have compared radiological, pain, and function scores in kinematically aligned (KA) and mechanically aligned (MA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA), no previous studies have undertaken a three-dimensional (3D) gait analysis in these groups. This study compared kinematic and kinetic variables recorded during level walking in patients at least 2 years post-surgery who underwent an MA or KA procedure. Methods: Utilizing a 9-camera motion analysis system, gait analysis was undertaken on 29 patients (MA = 15, KA = 14). A 9-camera motion analysis system was used to collect 3D kinematic data of the involved and uninvolved limbs during walking at a self-selected speed. Additionally, 3D ground reaction forces and moments during the stance phase were recorded, and an inverse dynamics approach was utilized to analyze these data. Results: There were no significant differences in spatial-temporal variables between MA and KA groups (P > .05). Local minima and maxima for knee joint angles were not significantly different (P > .05) across involved and uninvolved legs and MA/KA groups in any of the 3 planes of motion. Principal component analysis revealed a significant difference (P < .05) in the transverse plane moment in late stance. No other significant differences were observed for knee, hip, or ankle joint moments. Conclusion: Differences in gait parameters across the KA and MA groups at 2 years post-surgery were insufficient to support either one of the operative procedures over the other. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available