Abstract
Introduction
Financial and human cost effectiveness is an increasing evident outcome measure of surgical innovation. Considering the human element, the aim is to restore the individual to their “normal” state by sparing anatomy without compromising implant performance. Gait lab studies have shown differences between different implants at top walking speed, but none to our knowledge have analysed differing total hip replacement patients through the entire range of gait speed and incline to show differences. The purpose of this gait study was to 1) determine if a new short stem femoral implant would return patients back to normal 2) compare its performance to established hip resurfacing and long stem total hip replacement (THR) implants.
Method
110 subjects were tested on an instrumented treadmill (Kistler Gaitway), 4 groups (short-stem THR, long-stem THR, hip resurfacing and healthy controls) of 28, 29, 27, and 26 respectively. The new short femoral stem patients (Furlong Evolution, JRI) were taken from the ongoing Evolution Hip trial that have been tested on the treadmill minimum 12months postop. The long stem total hip replacements and hip resurfacing groups were identified from our 800+ patient treadmill database, and only included with tests minimum 12 months postop and had no other joint disease or medical comorbidities which would affect gait performance.
All subjects were tested through their entire range of gait speeds and incline after having a 5 minute habituation period. Speed were increased 0.5kmh until maximum walking speed achieved and inclines at 4kmh for 5,10,15%. At all incremental intervals of speed 10seconds ere collected, including vertical ground reaction forces (normalized to body mass), center of pressure and temporal measurements were for both limbs (fs=100Hz). Symmetry Index(SI) were calculated on a range of features comparing leg with implanted hip to the contralateral normal hip. Group means for each feature for each subject group were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey post-hoc test with significance set at α=0.05.
Results
The four groups were reasonably matched for demographics and the implant groups for subjective outcome measures (Oxford Score & EQ5D). Hip resurfacing group had a clear top walking speed advantage, but when assessing SI on all speeds and incline, no groups were significantly different (Figure 1-3). Push-off and step length was statistically less favorable for the short/long stemmed THR group (p=0.005–0.05) depending on speed/incline comparing only implanted side.
Discussion
The primary aim of this study was to determine if implant design affected gait symmetry and performance. Interestingly, irrespective of implant design, symmetry with regards to weight acceptance, impulse, push-off and step length was returned to normal when comparing to healthy controls. However individual implant performance on the flat and incline, showed inferior (p<0.05) push-off force and step length in the short stem and long stem THR groups when compared to controls. Age and gender may have played a part for the short stem group. It appears that the early gait outcomes for the short stem device are promising. Assessment at the 3-year mark should be conclusive.
