Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 138, Issue 5, pp 711–717 | Cite as

Normalized gait analysis parameters are closely related to patient-reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty

  • Julia Kirschberg
  • Szymon Goralski
  • Frank Layher
  • Klaus Sander
  • Georg Matziolis
Knee Arthroplasty
  • 121 Downloads

Abstract

Up till now, only a weak connection could be shown between patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) and measurements obtained by gait analysis (e.g. speed, step length, cadence, ground reaction force, joint moments and ranges of motion) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This may result from the methodical problem that regression analyses are performed using data that are not normalized against a healthy population. It does appear reasonable to assume that patients presenting a physiological gait pattern are content with their joint. The more the gait parameters differ from a normal gait pattern the worse the clinical outcome measured by PROMs should be expected to be. In this retrospective study, 40 patients were enrolled who had received a gait analysis after TKA, and whose PROMs had been evaluated. A gender- and age-matched control group was formed out of a group of test persons who had already undergone gait analysis. Gait analysis was undertaken using the motion analysis system 3D Vicon with ten infrared cameras and three strength measuring force plates. The physiological gait analysis parameters were deduced from arithmetic mean values taken from all control patients. The deviances of the operated patients’ gait analysis parameters from the arithmetic mean values were squared. From these values, the Pearson correlation coefficients for different PROMs were then calculated, and regression analyses were performed to elucidate the correlation between the different PROMs and gait parameters. In the regression analysis, the normalized cadence, relative gait speed of the non-operated side, and range of the relative knee moment of the operated side could be identified as factors which influence the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12). The explanation model showed an increase of the FJS-12 with minimisation of these normalized values corresponding to an approximation of the gait pattern seen in the healthy control group. The connection was strong, having a correlation coefficient of 0.708. A physiological gait pattern after TKA results in better PROMs, especially the FJS-12, than a non-physiological gait pattern does.

Keywords

Total knee arthroplasty Gait analysis Patient-reported outcome measures 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does contain only data that were collected in previous prospective studies that were performed on the basis of ethical approvals (number 5334-11/17).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants on the basis of the previously performed prospective studies.

References

  1. 1.
    Anneli H, Nina S-K, Arja H et al (2017) Effect of total knee replacement surgery and postoperative 12 month home exercise program on gait parameters. Gait Posture 53:92–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alice B-M, Stéphane A, Yoshisama SJ et al (2015) Evolution of knee kinematics three months after total knee replacement. Gait Posture 41:624–629.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.01.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shin Y-S, Kim H-J, Ko Y-R, Yoon J-R (2016) Minimally invasive navigation-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:3425–3432.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4016-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Webb JE, Yang HY, Collins JE et al (2017) The evolution of implant design decreases the incidence of lateral release in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 32:1505–1509.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martin JR, Jennings JM, Watters TS et al (2017) Femoral implant design modification decreases the incidence of patellar crepitus in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 32:1310–1313.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee YS, Howell SM, Won Y-Y et al (2017) Kinematic alignment is a possible alternative to mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4558-y Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thienpont E, Schwab P-E, Fennema P (2017) Efficacy of patient-specific instruments in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:521–530.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00496 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lampe F, Marques CJ, Fiedler F et al (2016) Patient-specific and intra-operatively modifiable factors assessed by computer navigation predict maximal knee flexion one year after TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:3457–3465.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4134-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matziolis G, Brodt S, Windisch C, Roehner E (2016) The reversed gap technique produces anatomical alignment with less midflexion instability in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:2430–2435.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3798-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Theodoulou A, Bramwell DC, Spiteri AC et al (2016) The use of scoring systems in knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplast 31:2364–2370.e8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McClelland JA, Webster KE, Feller JA (2007) Gait analysis of patients following total knee replacement: a systematic review. Knee 14:253–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2007.04.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Layher F, Zipfel M, Sander K et al (2016) Functional comparison of the outcome after midvastus and medial parapatellar surgical approach in total knee arthroplasty. Z Orthop Unfall 154:50–57.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1558074 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kiss RM, Bejek Z, Szendrői M (2012) Variability of gait parameters in patients with total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1252–1260.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-1965-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Collados-Maestre I, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Martinez-Mendez D et al (2016) Concomitant low back pain impairs outcomes after primary total knee arthroplasty in patients over 65 years: a prospective, matched cohort study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:1767–1771.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2576-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Naili JE, Iversen MD, Esbjörnsson A-C et al (2016) Deficits in functional performance and gait one year after total knee arthroplasty despite improved self-reported function. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4234-7 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yoshida Y, Zeni J, Snyder-Mackler L (2012) Do patients achieve normal gait patterns 3 years after total knee arthroplasty? J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 42:1039–1049.  https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2012.3763 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saari T, Tranberg R, Zügner R et al (2005) Changed gait pattern in patients with total knee arthroplasty but minimal influence of tibial insert design: gait analysis during level walking in 39 TKR patients and 18 healthy controls. Acta Orthop 76:253–260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith TO, Pearson M, Latham SK (2016) Are people following hip and knee arthroplasty at greater risk of experiencing a fall and fracture? Data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:865–872.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2445-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang H, Dugan E, Frame J, Rolston L (2009) Gait analysis after bi-compartmental knee replacement. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) 24:751–754.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.07.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nishio Y, Onodera T, Kasahara Y et al (2014) Intraoperative medial pivot affects deep knee flexion angle and patient-reported outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 29:702–706.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.06.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liebensteiner MC, Herten A, Gstoettner M et al (2008) Correlation between objective gait parameters and subjective score measurements before and after total knee arthroplasty. Knee 15:461–466.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2008.07.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bolink SAAN., Grimm B, Heyligers IC (2015) Patient-reported outcome measures versus inertial performance-based outcome measures: a prospective study in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee 22:618–623.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2015.04.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bonnefoy-Mazure A, Armand S, Sagawa Y et al (2017) Knee kinematic and clinical outcomes evolution before, 3 months, and 1 year after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 32:793–800.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.03.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mandeville DS, Osternig LR, Lantz BA et al (2009) A multivariate statistical ranking of clinical and gait measures before and after total knee replacement. Gait Posture 30:197–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2009.04.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Senden R, Grimm B, Meijer K et al (2011) The importance to including objective functional outcomes in the clinical follow up of total knee arthroplasty patients. Knee 18:306–311.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2010.07.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS (2012) The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplast 27:430–436.e1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baumann F, Ernstberger T, Loibl M et al (2016) Validation of the German forgotten joint score (G-FJS) according to the COSMIN checklist: does a reduction in joint awareness indicate clinical improvement after arthroplasty of the knee? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:257–264.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2372-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thienpont E, Vanden Berghe A, Schwab PE et al (2016) Joint awareness in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee evaluated with the “Forgotten Joint” score before and after joint replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:3346–3351.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3970-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hamilton DF, Loth FL, Giesinger JM et al (2017) Validation of the English language forgotten joint score-12 as an outcome measure for total hip and knee arthroplasty in a British population. Bone Jt J 99-B:218–224.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B2.BJJ-2016-0606.R1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schotanus MGM, Pilot P, Vos R, Kort NP (2017) No difference in joint awareness after mobile- and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-1921-0 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Turcot K, Sagawa Y, Fritschy D et al (2013) How gait and clinical outcomes contribute to patients’ satisfaction three months following a total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 28:1297–1300.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fuchs S, Tibesku CO, Genkinger M et al (2004) Clinical and functional comparison of bicondylar sledge prostheses retaining all ligaments and constrained total knee replacement. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) 19:263–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2003.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hajduk G, Nowak K, Sobota G et al (2016) Kinematic gait parameters changes in patients after total knee arthroplasty. Comparison between cruciate-retaining and posterior-substituting design. Acta Bioeng Biomech 18:137–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Otsuki T, Nawata K, Okuno M (1999) Quantitative evaluation of gait pattern in patients with osteoarthrosis of the knee before and after total knee arthroplasty. Gait analysis using a pressure measuring system. J Orthop Sci 4:99–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Öztürk A, Akalın Y, Çevik N et al (2016) Posterior cruciate-substituting total knee replacement recovers the flexion arc faster in the early postoperative period in knees with high varus deformity: a prospective randomized study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:999–1006.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2482-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Halewood C, Traynor A, Bellemans J et al (2015) Anteroposterior laxity after bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty is closer to the native knee than ACL-resecting TKA: a biomechanical cadaver study. J Arthroplast 30:2315–2319.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zumbrunn T, Varadarajan KM, Rubash HE et al (2015) Regaining native knee kinematics following joint arthroplasty: a novel biomimetic design with ACL and PCL preservation. J Arthroplast 30:2143–2148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bull AMJ, Kessler O, Alam M, Amis AA (2008) Changes in knee kinematics reflect the articular geometry after arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:2491–2499.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0440-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Matziolis G, Brodt S, Windisch C, Roehner E (2017) Changes of posterior condylar offset results in midflexion instability in single-radius total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:713–717.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2671-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopaedic DepartmentUniversity Hospital JenaEisenbergGermany

Personalised recommendations