Advertisement

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 135, Issue 2, pp 265–269 | Cite as

Incompliance of total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients to limited weight bearing

  • Anja Schaefer
  • Thilo Hotfiel
  • Johannes Pauser
  • Bernd Swoboda
  • Hans-Dieter CarlEmail author
Hip Arthroplasty

Abstract

Introduction

Limited weight bearing of the lower extremity is a commonly applied procedure in orthopedic rehabilitation following trauma surgery and joint replacement. The compliance of patients with limited weight bearing after cementless total hip arthroplasty has not yet been surveyed using sensor-loaded insoles. The objective of this study was to investigate foot loadings in patients after THA under the assumption of limited weight bearing.

Methods

Peak pressures for the hindfoot, midfoot and forefoot were obtained from 14 patients (10 women, 4 men, age 63 ± 12 years, height 172 ± 9 cm, weight 92 ± 20 kg, BMI 31 ± 6 kg/m2) by means of dynamic pedobarography, with full weight bearing preoperatively (baseline) and at 8–10 days after cementless total hip arthroplasty, walking again on even floor, and also walking upstairs and downstairs with a restriction of weight bearing to 10 % body weight, taught by an experienced physiotherapist with a bathroom scale.

Results

Foot loadings with limited weight bearing on even floor remained up to 88 % from full weight bearing preoperatively. Walking upstairs and downstairs under the same condition was approximately equal to a bisection of peak pressures from full weight bearing.

Conclusions

Patients following cementless do not comply with limited weight bearing when they are trained by the use of a bathroom scale.

Keywords

Total hip arthroplasty Foot load Weight bearing Pedobarography 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Mrs. Wendy Neubauer for carefully proofreading the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Da Costa GIB, Kumar N (1979) Early weightbearing in the treatment of fractures of the tibia. Injury 11:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Claes LE, Heigele CA (1999) Magnitudes of local stress and strain along bony surfaces predict the course and type of fracture healing. J Biomech 32:255–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boden H, Adolphson P (2004) No adverse effects of early weight bearing after uncemented total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study of 20 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 75:21–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taunt CJ Jr, Finn H, Baumann P (2008) Immediate weight bearing after cementless total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 31:223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hol AM, van Grinsven S, Lucas C, van Susante JL, van Loon CJ (2010) Partial versus unrestricted weight bearing after an uncemented femoral stem in total hip arthroplasty: recommendation of a concise rehabilitation protocol from a systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130:547–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dabke HV, Gupta SK, Holt CA, O’Callaghan P, Dent CM (2004) How accurate is partial weight bearing? Clin. Orthop Relat Res 421:282–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hustedt JW, Blizzard DJ, Baumgaertner MR, Leslie MP, Grauer JN (2012) Is it possible to train patients to limit weight bearing on a lower extremity? Orthopedics 35:31–37Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ebert JR, Ackland TR, Lloyd DG, Wood DJ (2008) Accuracy of partial weight bearing after autologous chondrocyte implantation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89:1528–1534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gusinde J, Pauser J, Swoboda B, Gelse K, Carl HD (2011) Foot loading characteristics of different graduations of partial weight bearing. Int J Rehabil Res 34:261–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Czurda T, Seidl M, Seiser AS, Schuh R, Trnka HJ, Ritschl P (2009) Triple arthrodesis in treatment of degenerative hindfoot deformities: clinical, radiological and pedobarographic results. Z Orthop Unfall 147:356–361PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DeFrino PF, Brodsky JW, Pollo FE, Crenshaw SJ, Beischer AD (2002) First metatarsophalangeal arthrodesis: a clinical, pedobarographic and gait analysis study. Foot Ankle Int 23:496–502PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lipscombe S, Molloy A, Sirikonda S, Hennessy MS (2008) Scarf osteotomy for the correction of hallux valgus: midterm clinical outcome. J Foot Ankle Surg 47:273–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Skwara A, Zounta V, Tibesku CO, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Rosenbaum D (2009) Plantar contact stress and gait analysis after resection of tarsal coalition. Acta Orthop Belg 75:654–660PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hahn F, Maiwald C, Horstmann T, Vienne P (2008) Changes in plantar pressure distribution after Achilles tendon augmentation with flexor hallucis longus transfer. Clin Biomech 23:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horisberger M, Hintermann B, Valderrabano V (2009) Alterations of plantar pressure distribution in posttraumatic end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. Clin Biomech 24:303–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jorge Filho D, Battistella LR, Lourenço C (2006) Computerized pedobarography in the characterization of ankle-foot instabilities of haemophilic patients. Haemophilia 12:140–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jeans KA, Karol LA (2010) Plantar pressures following Ponseti and French physiotherapy methods for clubfoot. J Pediatr Orthop 30:82–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carl HD, Putz C, Weseloh G, Forst R, Swoboda B (2006) Insoles for the rheumatic foot. A clinical and pedobarographic analysis. Orthopade 35:1176–1182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hodge MC, Bach TM, Carter GM (1999) novel Award First Prize Paper. Orthotic management of plantar pressure and pain in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Biomech 14:567–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pauser J, Jendrissek A, Swoboda B, Gelse K, Carl HD (2011) Inaccuracy of a physical strain trainer for the monitoring of partial weight bearing. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 92:1847–1851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stangl R, Krug R, Henning FF, Gusinde J (2004) The biofeedback sole tested is a suitable device for avoiding overload under partial load. Unfallchirurg 107:1162–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Isakow E (2007) Gait rehabilitation: a new biofeedback device for monitoring and enhancing weight-bearing over the affected lower limb. Eura Medicophys 43:21–26Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hershko E, Tauber C, Carmeli E (2008) Biofeedback versus physiotherapy in patients with partial weight-bearing. Am J Orthop 37:92–96Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anja Schaefer
    • 1
  • Thilo Hotfiel
    • 1
  • Johannes Pauser
    • 1
  • Bernd Swoboda
    • 1
  • Hans-Dieter Carl
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Orthopedic RheumatologyUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations