header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

A1017. ADVANCED OSTEOARTHRITIC GAIT KINEMATICS AND KINETICS



Abstract

Previous studies (Chen et al., 2003; Kaufmann et al., 2001) have shown that persons with osteoarthritis (OA) walk more slowly with lower cadence, have lower peak ground reaction forces and load their injured limb at a lower rate than healthy age matched subjects. However, another study (Mündermann et al., 2005) found that patients with severe bilateral OA loaded their knee joint at a higher rate. They also found these patients had higher knee adduction moments and lower hip adduction moments. It has been reported (McGibbon and Krebs 2002) that when subjects with knee OA are required to walk at the same speed as healthy subjects they generate more power at the hip joint to help overcome reduced knee power and aid in the advancement of the leg prior to the swing phase of the gait cycle. Myles et al. (2002) reported that patients with knee OA have reduced knee range of motion during walking. This paper presents detailed kinematic and kinetic data collected on a large group of patients with advanced knee osteoarthritis to show the differences in the gait of these patients just prior to surgery compared with age-matched control group.

This study was approved by the Sun Health Institutional Review Board. Subjects volunteered to participate in the study and signed informed consent prior to testing. Subjects were excluded if the had significant diseases of the other joints of the lower extremity or a diagnosed disorder with gait disturbance. Motion data was captured using a ten-camera motion capture system (Motion Analysis Corp., Santa Rosa, CA). Three-dimensional force data was recorded using four floor embedded force platforms (AMTI Inc., Watertown, MA). Patients were asked to walk at a self selected speed along a 6.5 meter walkway. A minimum of five good foot strikes for each limb were recorded. Data were collected using EVaRT 5 software (Motion Analysis Corp., Santa Rosa, CA) and analyzed using OrthoTrak 6.2.8 (Motion Analysis Corp., Santa Rosa, CA) and MatLab software (The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 14.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Il) (α = 0.05).

Eighty-six patients (71 ± 7 years) along with sixty-four control subjects (65± 10 years) volunteered to participate in the study. All measured temporal and spatial parameters showed significant differences between the OA patients and the control group. The OA patients were found to walk at a significantly lower velocity (p< .01) and cadence (p< .01) using a wider step width (p< .01) than the control subjects. Patients had their injured knee significantly more flexed at foot strike (p< .01) but flexed the knee significantly less during swing (p< .01) when compared to the control group. Patients had significantly higher knee flexion angles as well as hip flexion and abduction angles during stance. Knee varus angles were significantly higher for the OA patients during stance (p< .01) but not during swing when compared to the control group.

Significant increases in pelvic tilt and pelvic obliquity were measured during the stance phase. Hip abduction angles during stance were significantly lower for the OA group. Patients generated significantly lower vertical ground reaction forces during stance (p< .01) while sagittal plane kinetic analysis showed significantly lower external knee flexion moments (p< .01) and knee power generation (p< .01) during this phase of the gait cycle. Analysis of frontal plane angles showed OA patients had a significantly higher maximum knee varus angle during stance as well as generating a higher external knee varus moment (p=.03) during this phase of the gait cycle.

Changes in gait measured in this study support and enhance findings from previous studies. OA patients appeared to walk with a more crouched posture with higher knee and hip flexion angles through mid stance. This along with lower velocity and cadence and a larger step width would indicate a desire for more stability while walking. Patients also flexed their knees more at foot strike in an attempt to absorb the forces generated during weight acceptance. While knee flexion angles measured for the OA group were similar to the control subjects during the initial period of stance, the OA patients did not extend their knees as much during mid stance indicating a desire to reduce the angular rotation of the knee while in single support. Changes measured in frontal plane angles of the hip and pelvis may be an attempt to compensate for the different angles generated by the knee during stance. The differences in hip and knee angles measured during stance for patients and controls allowed patients to have reduced peak external knee flexion moments during initial stance but a higher knee flexion moment at mid stance. The reduction in knee angular change during stance and the reduced cadence meant power absorption during early and late stance and generation during mid stance was much lower for the OA patients than the control group. All the changes noted appear to be designed to limit the movement of the knee joint while loaded and reduce the peak loads in an effort to reduce pain at the affected joint while at the same time increase stability during gait. These data show the differences that exist between the gait patterns of patients with advanced osteoarthritis and healthy age-matched persons and highlight the changes that are necessary following knee replacement surgery and rehabilitation to return the gait of these patients to normal.

Correspondence should be addressed to Diane Przepiorski at ISTA, PO Box 6564, Auburn, CA 95604, USA. Phone: +1 916-454-9884; Fax: +1 916-454-9882; E-mail: ista@pacbell.net

References:

1 Chen, C.P.C., et al. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 ;82(4):307–12. Google Scholar

2 Kaufman, K.R., et al. J Biomech 2001; 34:907–915. Google Scholar

3 McGibbon, C.A., & Krebs, D.E. J Rheumatol. 2002 Nov;29(11):2410–9. Google Scholar

4 Mündermann A., et al. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52(9):2835–2844. Google Scholar

5 Myles, et al. Gait and Posture 2002; 16:46–54. Google Scholar