INTRODUCTION

Mobile-bearing knee prostheses have been designed in order to provide less constrained knee kinematics compared to fixed-bearing prosthesis. Currently, there is no evidence to confirm the superiority of either of the two implants with regard to walking performances. It has been shown that subjective outcome scores correlate poorly with real walking performance and it has been recommended to obtain an additional assessment of walking ability with objective gait analysis.

This study compared the outcome of total knee replacement (TKR) in adult patients with fixed- and mobile-bearing prostheses during the first post-operative year and at five years’ follow-up, using gait parameters as a new objective measure. This double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial included 55 patients with mobile-bearing (n = 26) and fixed-bearing (n = 29) prostheses of the same design, evaluated pre-operatively and post-operatively at six weeks, three months, six months, one year and five years. Each participant undertook two walking trials of 30 m and completed the EuroQol questionnaire, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, Knee Society score, and visual analogue scales for pain and stiffness. Gait analysis was performed using five miniature angular rate sensors mounted on the trunk (sacrum), each thigh and calf. The study population was divided into two groups according to age (≤ 70 years versus > 70 years).

Improvements in most gait parameters at five years’ follow-up were greater for fixed-bearing TKRs in older patients (> 70 years), and greater for mobile-bearing TKRs in younger patients (≤ 70 years). These findings should be confirmed by an extended age controlled study, as the ideal choice of prosthesis might depend on the age of the patient at the time of surgery.

Introduction: Coordination is a strategy chosen by the central nervous system to control the movements and maintain stability during gait. Coordinated multi-joint movements require a complex interaction between nervous outputs, biomechanical constraints, and pro-prioception. Quantitatively understanding and modeling gait coordination still remain a challenge. Surgeons lack a way to model and appreciate the coordination of patients before and after surgery of the lower limbs. Patients alter their gait patterns and their kinematic synergies when they walk faster or slower than normal speed to maintain their stability and minimize the energy cost of locomotion. The goal of this study was to provide a dynamical system approach to quantitatively describe human gait coordination and apply it to patients before and after total knee arthroplasty.

Methods: A new method of quantitative analysis of interjoint coordination during gait was designed, providing a general model to capture the whole dynamics and showing the kinematic synergies at various walking speeds. The proposed model imposed a relationship among lower limb joint angles (hips and knees) to parameterize the dynamics of locomotion of each individual. An integration of different analysis tools such as Harmonic analysis, Principal Component Analysis, and Artificial Neural Network helped overcome high-dimensionality, temporal dependence, and non-linear relationships of the gait patterns.

Ten patients were studied using an ambulatory gait device (Physilog®). Each participant was asked to perform two walking trials of 30m long at 3 different speeds and to complete an EQ-5D questionnaire, a WOMAC and Knee Society Score. Lower limbs rotations were measured by four miniature angular rate sensors mounted respectively, on each shank and thigh. The outcomes of the eight patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, recorded pre-operatively and post-operatively at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year were compared to 2 age-matched healthy subjects.

Results: The new method provided coordination scores at various walking speeds, ranged between 0 and 10. It determined the overall coordination of the lower limbs as well as the contribution of each joint to the total coordination. The difference between the pre-operative and post-operative coordination values were correlated with the improvements of the subjective outcome scores. Although the study group was small, the results showed a new way to objectively quantify gait coordination of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, using only portable body-fixed sensors.

Conclusion: A new method for objective gait coordination analysis has been developed with very encouraging results regarding the objective outcome of lower limb surgery.

Background: Mobile-bearing knee replacements have some theoretical advantages over fixed-bearing devices. However, very few randomized controlled clinical trials have been published to date, and studies showed little clinical and subjective advantages for the mobile-bearing using traditional systems of scoring. The choice of the ideal outcome measure to assess total joint replacement remains a complex issue. However, gait analysis provides objective and quantifying evidences of treatment evaluation. Significant methodological advances are currently made in gait analysis laboratories and ambulatory gait devices are now available. The goal of this study was to provide gait parameters as a new objective method to assess total knee arthroplasty outcome between patients with fixed- and mobile-bearing, using an ambulatory device with minimal sensor configuration.

This randomized controlled double-blind study included to date 14 patients: the gait signatures of four patients with mobile-bearing were compared to the gait signatures of nine patients with fixed-bearing pre-operatively and post-operatively at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. Each participant was asked to perform two walking trials of 30m long at his/her preferred speed and to complete a EQ-5D questionnaire, a WOMAC and Knee Society Score (KSS). Lower limbs rotations were measured by four miniature angular rate sensors mounted respectively, on each shank and thigh.

A new method for a portable system for gait analysis has been developed with very encouraging results regarding the objective outcome of total knee arthroplasty using mobile- and fixed-bearings.

Background: Mobile-bearing knee replacements have some theoretical advantages over fixed-bearing devices. However, very few randomized controlled clinical trials have been published to date, and studies showed little clinical and subjective advantages for the mobile-bearing using traditional systems of scoring.

The choice of the ideal outcome measure to assess total joint replacement remains a complex issue. However, gait analysis provides objective and quantifying evidences of treatment evaluation. Significant methodological advances are currently made in gait analysis laboratories and ambulatory gait devices are now available.

The goal of this study was to provide gait parameters as a new objective method to assess total knee arthroplasty outcome between patients with fixed- and mobile-bearing, using an ambulatory device with minimal sensor configuration.

Methods: This randomized controlled double-blind study included to date 31 patients: the gait signatures of 12 patients with mobile-bearing were compared to the gait signatures of 19 patients with fixed-bearing pre-operatively and post-operatively at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. Each participant was asked to perform two walking trials of 30m long at his/her preferred speed and to complete a EQ-5D questionnaire, a WOMAC and Knee Society Score (KSS). Lower limbs rotations were measured by four miniature angular rate sensors mounted respectively, on each shank and thigh.

Results: Better relative differences between pre-operative and post-operative 3 months and 6 months KSS (122% vs 34% at 3 months, 138% vs 36% at 6 months) and KSS function (154% vs 8% at 3 months, 183% vs 42% at 6 months) scores were observed for the fixed-bearing compared to the mobile-bearing. The same better improvements for fixed-bearing were also found with the range of knee angles (Affected side: 31% vs −5% at 3 months, 47% vs 5% at 6 months), (Unaffected side: 16% vs 5% at 3 months, 15% vs 6% at 6 months) and peak swing speeds of shank (Affected side: 18% vs −2% at 3 months, 30% vs 4% at 6 months), (Unaffected side: 8% vs −3% at 3 months, 7% vs 4% at 6 months).

Conclusions: A new method for a portable system for gait analysis has been developed with very encouraging results regarding the objective outcome of total knee arthroplasty using mobile- and fixed-bearings.