Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is in particular promoted for knee OA patients with high demands on function and activity. This study used wearable inertial sensors to objectively assess function during specific motion tasks and to monitor activities of daily living to verify if UKA permits better function or more activity in particular with demanding tasks. In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, UKA patients (Oxford, n=26, 13m/13f, age at FU: 66.5 ±7.6yrs) were compared to TKA patients (Vanguard, n=26, 13m/13f, age: 66.0 ±6.9yrs) matched for gender, age and BMI (29.5 ±4.6) at 5 years follow-up. Subjective evaluation of pain, function, physical activity and awareness of the joint arthroplasty was performed by means of four PROMs: VAS pain, KOOS-PS, SQUASH (activity) and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), Objective measurement of function was performed using a 3D inertia sensor attached to the sacrum while performing gait test, sit-stand and block-step tests. To derive functional parameters such as walking cadence or sway during transfers or step-up previously validated algorithms were used (Bolink et al., 2012). Daily physical activity was objectively monitored with a 3D accelerometer attached to the lateral side of the unaffected upper leg during four consecutive days. Activity parameters (counts and times of postures, steps, stairs, transfers, etc.) were also derived using validated algorithms. Data was analysed using independent T-test, Mann-Whitney U test and Pearson's correlation.Introduction
Methods
Accelerometer based gait analysis (AGA) is a potential alternative to the more commonly used skin marker based optical motion analysis system(OMAS). The use of gyroscopes in conjunction with accelerometers (i.e. inertial sensors), enables the assessment of position and angular movements of body segments and provides ambulatory kinematic characterisation of gait. We investigated commonly used gait parameters and also a novel parameter, Pelvic obliquity (PO) and whether they can be used as a parameter of physical function and correlate with classic clinical outcome scores Gait was studied in healthy subjects (n=20), in patients with end stage hip OA (n=20) and in patients with end stage knee OA (n=20). Subjects walked 20 metres in an indoor environment along a straight flat corridor at their own preferred speed. A 3D inertial sensor was positioned centrally between the posterior superior iliac spines (PSIS) overlying S1. Comparing gait parameters of end stage hip OA patients with an age and gender matched healthy control group, significantly lower walking speed, longer step duration and shorter step length was observed. After correcting for walking speed between groups, significantly less average range of motion of PO (RoMpo) was observed for patients with end stage hip OA compared to healthy subjects and patients with end stage knee OA. IGA allows objective assessment of physical function for everyday clinical practice and allows assessment of functional parameters beyond time only. IGA measures another dimension of physical function and could be used supplementary to monitor recovery of OA patients after TJR.
Patient satisfaction becomes an important aspect in clinical practice causing a shift from clinician-administered scales (CAS) towards patient-administered measurement outcomes (PROMs). Besides, clinical outcome can objectively be evaluated using inertia-based motion analysis (IMA). This study evaluates different outcome measures by investigating the 1) effect of replacing CAS by PROMS on outcome assessment, 2) redundancy between scales, 3) additional value of IMA in outcome scoring. This cross-sectional study included 27 primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty patients (m/f=12/19; age=66.2 yrs), 6 weeks (n=12) and 6 months (n=15) postoperative, who covered a wide range of the scores. One CAS (Knee Society Score (KSS; knee and function subscore), two PROMs (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Shortform (KOOS-PS), Visual Analogue Scale satisfaction (VAS)) and a functional test (IMA block step test) were completed. For IMA, patients stepped up and down a 20cm block starting with the affected and followed by the non-affected leg, while wearing an inertia-sensor (3D accelero- and gyrometer) at the lower back (fig. 1). IMA-parameters like performance time (s), bending angle (°), pelvic-obliquity angle (°), were calculated using self-designed algorithms. Differences between legs were determined by ratios (affected/non-affected leg). Pearson's correlations were done, considering r<0.4 poor, 0.4<r<0.7 moderate, r>0.7 strong.Introduction
Methods
Increasing numbers and incidence rates of noisy (squeaking, scratching or clicking) ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) total hip arthroplasties (THA) are being reported. The etiology seems to always involve stripe wear producing a stick-slip effect in the bearing which excites vibrations. As stripe wear is also found in silent CoC bearings, a theory has been developed that the vibrations become audible only via amplification through the vibrating stem. This was supported by showing that the excitation frequency and the resonance frequency of the plain stem are similar [1]. However, stem resonance in-vivo would be influenced by the periprosthetic bone damping and transmitting stem vibrations. Thus, if stem resonance is conditional for noisy COC hips, these should show periprosthetic bone different to silent hips. This study compares stem fit&fill and periprosthetic bone between noisy and silent CoC hips. In a consecutive series of 186 primary CoC hips with identical stems, cups (Stryker ABG-II) and femoral heads (Alumina V40, 28mm) a dedicated patient questionnaire [2] identified 38 noisy hips (incidence rate: 20.4%, squeakers: n=23). Stem fit&fill and cortical wall thickness (CWT, medial and lateral) were measured on post-op AP x-rays according to an established method [3, Fig 1]. Measurements were repeated by a single blinded observer in a control group of silent hips matched for gender, age, stem size and follow-up time (4.6yrs). Fit&fill and CWT were compared between the noisy and silent group at proximal, mid-stem and distal level and on the medial and lateral side.Introduction
Methods
