UNDERSTANDING WHY WELL-FUNCTIONING TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY PATIENTS FAIL TO ACHIEVE NORMAL WALKING VELOCITY

Langley B, Whelton C, Page R, et al. UNDERSTANDING WHY WELL-FUNCTIONING TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY PATIENTS FAIL TO ACHIEVE NORMAL WALKING VELOCITY. Orthop Procs. 2021;103-B(SUPP_2):36-36. doi:10.1302/1358-992X.2021.2.036

Langley, Ben, et al. “UNDERSTANDING WHY WELL-FUNCTIONING TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY PATIENTS FAIL TO ACHIEVE NORMAL WALKING VELOCITY.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, vol. 103-B, no. SUPP_2, 2021, pp. 36-36., https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.2.036

Langley, B., Whelton, C., Page, R., Chalmers, O., Cramp, M., Morrison, S., Dey, P., & Board, T. (2021). UNDERSTANDING WHY WELL-FUNCTIONING TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY PATIENTS FAIL TO ACHIEVE NORMAL WALKING VELOCITY. Orthopaedic Proceedings, 103-B(SUPP_2), 36-36. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.2.036

Langley, B., Whelton, C., Page, R., Chalmers, O., Cramp, M., Morrison, S. et al. (2021) “UNDERSTANDING WHY WELL-FUNCTIONING TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY PATIENTS FAIL TO ACHIEVE NORMAL WALKING VELOCITY.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, 103-B(SUPP_2), pp. 36-36. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.2.036

Langley, Ben, Chris Whelton, Richard Page, Oliver Chalmers, Mary Cramp, Stewart Morrison, Paola Dey, and Tim Board. “UNDERSTANDING WHY WELL-FUNCTIONING TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY PATIENTS FAIL TO ACHIEVE NORMAL WALKING VELOCITY.” Orthopaedic Proceedings 103-B, no. SUPP_2 (2021): 36-36. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.2.036

Langley B, Whelton C, Page R, Chalmers O, Cramp M, Morrison S, et al. UNDERSTANDING WHY WELL-FUNCTIONING TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY PATIENTS FAIL TO ACHIEVE NORMAL WALKING VELOCITY. Orthop Procs. 2021 Mar 1;103-B(SUPP_2):36-36. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.2.036

Copy to clipboard

BibTeX

EndNote

RIS

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this study was to determine the kinematic factor(s) underlying the reduction in walking velocity displayed by total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients in comparison to healthy controls during walking gait.

Methods

Eleven patients with well-functioning THA (71 ± 8 years, Oxford Hip Score = 46 ± 3) and ten healthy controls (61 ± 5 years) participated within this study. Sagittal plane lower limb kinematics were captured using a 10 camera Qualisys motion capture system, sampling at 200Hz, as participants walked overground at a self-selected pace. Bivariate linear regression was used to explore the relationship between walking velocity and a number of kinematic variables in a deterministic manner. Kinematic variables significantly associated with walking velocity were compared between THA and healthy groups utilising independent samples t-tests.

Results

Peak hip extension was a significant (r² = .36; p =.004) predictor of hip range of motion. Hip range of motion significantly (r² = .61 p <.001) predicted stride length. Stride length was a significant (r² = .75; p <.001) predictor of walking velocity. Peak hip extension and range of motion, and stride length were significantly (p ≤ .033) smaller for the THA group compared to the healthy control group.

Conclusions

The deterministic model developed within this study links slower walking velocities to smaller peak hip extension, via reductions in hip range of motion and stride length. Stride length, hip range of motion and peak hip extension were all significantly lower for the THA group compared to the healthy group, despite patients reporting the implants to be well-functioning. Elucidating the mechanism(s) which restrict peak hip extension within THA populations is essential for maximising functional recovery and walking velocity post-operatively.

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.