Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 127, Issue 2, pp 91–96 | Cite as

Gait assessment in patients with thrust plate prosthesis and intramedullary stemmed prosthesis implanted to each hip

  • Salih Angin
  • Vasfi Karatosun
  • Bayram Unver
  • Izge Gunal
Orthopaedic Surgery
First Online:
Received:

Abstract

Introduction

There has not been any study regarding comparative gait analysis in patients with intramedullary stemmed prosthesis (ISP) and thrust plate prosthesis (TPP) implanted to each hip.

Patients and methods

Four patients (three females and one male) who had undergone operation due to coxarthrosis were selected. The mean age was 60.5 (37–78) years. TPP and ISP had been implanted to the left and right hip, respectively, in three patients, and one patient received TPP to the right and ISP to the left hip. Gait was analyzed with a BTS Elite System consisting six cameras and two Kistler force plates using Helen Hayes marker set to assess the gait parameters. The clinical outcome was also evaluated according to Harris hip score (HHS).

Results

The average HHS was 95.0 (82–100) points after a mean follow-up of 45.0 (30–50) months for TPP and 94.5 (80–100) points after a follow-up of 60.0 (14–122) months for ISP. Neither of the HHS scores and follow-up time nor gait parameters obtained from the TPP-implanted side were statistically different when compared to those of the ISP-implanted side.

Conclusion

TPP and ISP as the implants with their own biomechanical specifications did not produce any remarkable difference in gait.

Keywords

Gait assessment Gait symmetry Thrust plate prosthesis Intramedullary stemmed prosthesis Total hip arthroplasty 

Abbreviations

TPP

Thrust plate prosthesis

ISP

Intramedullary stemmed prosthesis

THA

Total hip arthroplasty

HHS

Harris hip score

GRF

Ground reaction force

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Aminian K, Trevisan C, Najafi B, Dejnabadi Frigo C, Pavan E, Telonio A, Cerati F, Marinoni EC, Robert Ph, Leyvraz PF (2004) Evaluation of an ambulatory system for gait analysis in hip osteoarthritis and total hip replacement. Gait Posture 20:102–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chun-Hsiung S, Weng-Pin C, Ching-Lung T, Rong-Fu K, Chi-Chuan W, Chih-Hwa C (1997) New concepts—biomechanical studies of a newly designed femoral prosthesis (cervico-trochanter prosthesis). Clin Biomech 12:482–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fink B, Rüther W (2000) Teil-und Totalgelenkersatz bei Hüftkopfnekrosen. Orthopäde 29:449–456PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fink B, Siegmüller C, Schneider T, Conrad S, Schmielau G, Rüther W (2000) Shortand medium-term results of the thrust plate prosthesis in patients with polyarthritis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 120:294–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huggler AH, Jacob HAC, Bereiter H, Haferkorn M, Ryf CH, Schenl R (1993) Long-term results with the uncemented thrust plate prosthesis. Acta Orthop Belg 59(Suppl 1):215–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huggler AH, Jacob AC (1980) A new approach towards hip-prosthesis design. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 97:141–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kyriazis V, Riga C (2002) Temporal gait analysis of hip osteoarthritic patients operated with cementless hip replacement. Clin Biomech 17:318–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loizeau J, Allard P, Duhaime M, Landjerit M (1995) Bilateral gait patterns in subjects fitted with a total hip prosthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76:552–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCrory JL, White SC, Lifeso RM (2001) Vertical ground reaction forces: objective measures of gait following hip arthroplasty. Gait Posture 14:104–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Menge von M, Dunai FJ (1997) Die Druckscheibenprothese nach Huggler und Jacob: Fünf jahre klinische erfahrungen. Orthopädische Praxis 33:381–386Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miki H, Sugano N, Hagio KH, Nishii T, Kawakami H, Kakimoto A, Nakamura N, Yoshikawa H (2004) Recovery of walking speed and symmetrical movement of the pelvis and lower extremity joints after unilateral THA. J Biomech 37:443–455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Perron M, Malouin F, Moffet H, McFadyen BJ (2000) Three-dimensional gait analysis in women with a total hip arthroplasty. Clin Biomech 15:504–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sliwinski MM, Sisto SA, Batavia M, Chen B, Forrest F (2004) Dynamic stability during walking following unilateral total hip arthroplasty. Gait Posture 19:141–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steens W, Rosenbaum D, Goetze C, Gosheger G, van den Daele R, Steinback J (2003) Clinical and functional outcome of the thrust plate prosthesis: short and medium-term results. Clin Biomech 18:647–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Unver B, Karatosun V, Gunal I (2001) Rehabilitation of thrust plate prosthesis which is a new approach of the femoral component of total hip arthroplasty. Arthroplasty Arthrosco Surg 12:186–193Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Unver B, Karatosun V, Gunal I, Angin S (2004) Comparison of two different rehabilitation programmes for thrust plate prosthesis: a randomized controlled study. Clin Rehabil 18:84–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zelle BA, Gerich TG, Bastian L, Shuler FD, Pape HC, Krettek C (2004) Total hip arthroplasty in young patients using the thrust plate prosthesis: clinical and radiological results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124:310–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salih Angin
    • 1
  • Vasfi Karatosun
    • 2
  • Bayram Unver
    • 1
  • Izge Gunal
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Physical Therapy and RehabilitationDokuz Eylul UniversityIzmirTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Medicine, Department of Orthopedics and TraumatologyDokuz Eylul UniversityIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations