Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
1. To investigate the effect of revision total knee replacement (TKR) on gait kinematics in patients with a primary TKR and instability.2. To compare gait kinematics between patients with a well-functioning TKR and those with a primary TKR and symptoms of instability.
Methods
This single-centre observational study is following patients who have had a revision TKR due to knee instability. Data was collected pre- and post-operatively at 8–12 week follow-up. The data was compared to a control group of 18 well-functioning TKR patients. Kinematic gait data was collected during routine clinics using a treadmill-based infrared 3D system (Vicon, Oxford, UK) and a published lower limb marker-set. Patients performed 15 strides at three different speeds: 0.6mph, self-selected, and a ‘slow walk’ normalised to leg length (Froude number 0.09). PROMs questionnaires were collected. NHS ethical approval was obtained.
Results
Data was collected for 18 well-functioning TKR patients and 8 revision TKR patients pre- and post-operatively, but only 5 could walk at the normalised speed. When walking at a normalised speed (Froude 0.09), patients with a TKR with instability had reduced range of knee flexion (52° (sd 14)) compared to those with a well-functioning TKR (59° (sd 11)). Short term follow-up after a revision TKR operation demonstrated a stiffer knee (45° (sd 12)). However, those with revision TKR had a more flexed knee during stance phase.
Conclusions
At short-term follow-up, this cohort of revision TKR patients appear to have reduced flexion range, while remaining more flexed during stance. This may represent a less efficient gait pattern, which may also adversely affect the implant[1]. Longer term follow-up may demonstrate whether this normalises with post-operative rehabilitation.
Declaration of Interest
(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.
