Up till now, only a weak connection could be shown between patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) and measurements obtained by gait analysis (e.g. speed, step length, cadence, ground reaction force, joint moments and ranges of motion) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This may result from the methodical problem that regression analyses are performed using data that are not normalized against a healthy population. It does appear reasonable to assume that patients presenting a physiological gait pattern are content with their joint. The more the gait parameters differ from a normal gait pattern the worse the clinical outcome measured by PROMs should be expected to be. In this retrospective study, 40 patients were enrolled who had received a gait analysis after TKA, and whose PROMs had been evaluated. A gender- and age-matched control group was formed out of a group of test persons who had already undergone gait analysis. Gait analysis was undertaken using the motion analysis system 3D Vicon with ten infrared cameras and three strength measuring force plates. The physiological gait analysis parameters were deduced from arithmetic mean values taken from all control patients. The deviances of the operated patients’ gait analysis parameters from the arithmetic mean values were squared. From these values, the Pearson correlation coefficients for different PROMs were then calculated, and regression analyses were performed to elucidate the correlation between the different PROMs and gait parameters. In the regression analysis, the normalized cadence, relative gait speed of the non-operated side, and range of the relative knee moment of the operated side could be identified as factors which influence the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12). The explanation model showed an increase of the FJS-12 with minimisation of these normalized values corresponding to an approximation of the gait pattern seen in the healthy control group. The connection was strong, having a correlation coefficient of 0.708. A physiological gait pattern after TKA results in better PROMs, especially the FJS-12, than a non-physiological gait pattern does.
Total knee arthroplasty Gait analysis Patient-reported outcome measures
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does contain only data that were collected in previous prospective studies that were performed on the basis of ethical approvals (number 5334-11/17).
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants on the basis of the previously performed prospective studies.
Saari T, Tranberg R, Zügner R et al (2005) Changed gait pattern in patients with total knee arthroplasty but minimal influence of tibial insert design: gait analysis during level walking in 39 TKR patients and 18 healthy controls. Acta Orthop 76:253–260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hajduk G, Nowak K, Sobota G et al (2016) Kinematic gait parameters changes in patients after total knee arthroplasty. Comparison between cruciate-retaining and posterior-substituting design. Acta Bioeng Biomech 18:137–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
Otsuki T, Nawata K, Okuno M (1999) Quantitative evaluation of gait pattern in patients with osteoarthrosis of the knee before and after total knee arthroplasty. Gait analysis using a pressure measuring system. J Orthop Sci 4:99–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar