Signe Rosenlund

The Gait Deviation Index Is Associated with Hip Muscle Strength and Patient-Reported Outcome in Patients with Severe Hip Osteoarthritis-A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background The Gait Deviation Index summarizes overall gait ‘quality’, based on kinematic data from a 3-dimensional gait analysis. However, it is unknown which clinical outcomes may affect the Gait Deviation Index in patients with primary hip osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to investigate associations between Gait Deviation Index as a measure of gait ‘quality’ and hip muscle strength and between Gait Deviation Index and patient-reported outcomes in patients with primary hip osteoarthritis. Method Forty-seven patients (34 males), aged 61.1 ± 6.7 years, with BMI 27.3 ± 3.4 (kg/m2) and with severe primary hip osteoarthritis underwent 3-dimensional gait analysis. Mean Gait Deviation Index, pain after walking and maximal isometric hip muscle strength (flexor, extensor, and abductor) were recorded. All patients completed the ‘Physical Function Short-form of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS-Physical Function) and the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales for pain (HOOS-Pain) and quality-of-life (HOOS-QOL). Results Mean Gait Deviation Index was positively associated with hip abduction strength (p<0.01, r = 0.40), hip flexion strength (p = 0.01, r = 0.37), HOOS-Physical Function (p<0.01, r = 0.41) HOOS-QOL (p<0.01, r = 0.41), and negatively associated with HOOS-Pain after walking (p<0.01, r = -0.45). Adjusting the analysis for walking speed did not affect the association. Conclusion Patients with the strongest hip abductor and hip flexor muscles had the best gait ‘quality’. Furthermore, patients with higher physical function, quality of life scores and lower pain levels demonstrated better gait ‘quality’. These findings indicate that interventions aimed at improving hip muscle strength and pain management may to a moderate degree improve the overall gait ‘quality’ in patients with primary hip OA.

Patient-reported outcome after total hip arthroplasty: comparison between lateral and posterior approach

Background and purpose — Criticism of the lateral approach (LA) for hip arthroplasty is mainly based on the risk of poor patient-reported outcomes compared to the posterior approach (PA). However, there have been no controlled studies comparing patient-reported outcomes between them. In this randomized controlled trial, we tested the hypothesis that patient-reported outcomes are better in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA) with PA than in those who have undergone THA with LA, 12 months postoperatively. Patients and methods — 80 patients with hip osteoarthritis (mean age 61 years) were randomized to THA using PA or the modified direct LA. We recorded outcome measures preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score–Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS) as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were HOOS-Pain, HOOS-Quality-Of-Life, EQ-5D, UCLA Activity Score, and limping. Results — We found no statistically significant difference in the improvements in HOOS-PS between the treatment groups at 12-month follow-up. All secondary outcomes showed similar results except for limping, where PA patients improved significantly more than LA patients. Interpretation — Contrary to our hypothesis, patients treated with PA did not improve more than patients treated with LA regarding physical function, pain, physical activity, and quality of life 12 months postoperatively. However, limping was more pronounced in the LA patients.

The efficacy of modified direct lateral versus posterior approach on gait function and hip muscle strength after primary total hip arthroplasty at 12months follow-up. An explorative randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND The lateral and the posterior approach are the most commonly used procedures for total hip arthroplasty. Due to the detachment of the hip abductors, lateral approach is claimed to cause reduced hip muscle strength and altered gait pattern. However, this has not been investigated in a randomised controlled trial. The aim was to compare the efficacy of total hip arthroplasty performed by lateral or posterior approach on gait function and hip muscle strength up to 12months post-operatively. We hypothesised that posterior approach would be superior to lateral approach. METHODS Forty-seven patients with primary hip osteoarthritis were randomised to total hip arthroplasty with either posterior or lateral approach and evaluated pre-operatively, 3 and 12months post-operatively using 3-dimensional gait analyses as objective measures of gait function, including Gait Deviation Index, temporo-spatial parameters and range of motion. Isometric maximal hip muscle strength in abduction, flexion and extension was also tested. FINDINGS Post-operatively, no between-group difference in gait function was observed. However, both hip abductor and flexor muscle strength improved more in the posterior approach group: -0.20(Nm/kg)[95%CI:-0.4 to 0.0] and -0.20(Nm/kg)[95%CI:-0.4 to 0.0], respectively. INTERPRETATION Contrary to our first hypothesis, the overall gait function in the posterior approach group did not improve more than in the lateral approach group. However, in agreement with our second hypothesis, patients in the posterior approach group improved more in hip abductor and flexor muscle strength at 12months. Further investigation of the effect of reduced maximal hip muscle strength on functional capacity is needed. ClinicalTrials.gov. No.: NCT01616667.

Radiographic cup position following posterior and lateral approach to total hip arthroplasty. An explorative randomized controlled trial

The two most common surgical approaches to total hip arthroplasty are the posterior approach and lateral approach. The surgical approach may influence cup positioning and restoration of the offset, which may affect the biomechanical properties of the hip joint. The primary aim was to compare cup position between posterior approach and lateral approach. Secondary aims were to compare femoral offset, abductor moment arm and leg length discrepancy between the two approaches. Eighty patients with primary hip osteoarthritis were included in a randomized controlled trial and assigned to total hip arthroplasty using posterior approach or lateral approach. Postoperative radiographs from 38 patients in each group were included in this study for measurement of cup anteversion and inclination. Femoral offset, cup offset, total offset, abductor moment arm and leg length discrepancy were measured on preoperative and postoperative radiographs in 28 patients in each group. We found that mean anteversion was 5° larger in the posterior approach group (95% CI, -8.1 to -1.4; p = 0.006), while mean inclination was 5° less steep (95% CI, 2.7 to 7.2; p<0.001) compared with the lateral approach group. The posterior approach group had a larger mean femoral offset of 4.3mm (95% CI, -7.4 to -1.3, p = 0.006), mean total offset of 6.3mm (95% CI, -9.6 to -3; p<0.001) and mean abductor moment arm of 4.8mm (95% CI, -7.6 to -1.9; p = 0.001) compared with the lateral approach group. We found a larger cup anteversion but less steep cup inclination in the posterior approach group compared with the lateral approach group. Femoral offset and abductor moment arm were restored after total hip arthroplasty using lateral approach but significantly increased when using posterior approach.