Focusing on functional knee parameter determination to develop a better clinical gait analysis protocol

[An update on clinical gait analysis : Current developments and applications]

The objective acquisition and assessment of joint movements and loads using instrumented gait analysis has become an established tool in clinical diagnostics. In particular, marker-based 3D gait analyses make use of an increasingly comprehensive database for the assessment of orthopaedic or neurological questions. Based on this data and medical-scientific experience, increasingly reliable approaches and evaluation strategies are emerging, which also draw on methods from artificial intelligence and musculoskeletal modelling. This article focusses on marker-based gait analyses of the lower extremity (hip, knee, foot) and how these can be used in a clinically relevant way using current methods, e.g. for determining indications or optimization of surgical planning. Finally, current developments and applications by using alternative methods from sensor technology and optical motion capture will be briefly discussed.

Functional knee joint axis calibration and outcome after femoral derotation in patients with cerebral palsy

BACKGROUND

Patients with cerebral palsy and increased femoral anteversion frequently show disturbing internal rotation gait which may be treated via femoral derotation osteotomy (FDO). A recent study monitored that hip rotation in gait may heavily depend on the procedure by which it is being determined. Traditional measures using the femoral epicondyles as reference for the knee axis (CONV) resulted in more severe transverse plane deviations compared to those using a functional method (FUNC) with relevant implications for treatment indication of FDO.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is mean hip rotation in stance (mHipRotSt) as obtained via FUNC the more sensitive measure for explaining functional changes after FDO compared to CONV method taking the femoral epicondyles as reference for the knee axis?

METHODS

3D-gait analysis before and one year after FDO was performed in fourteen patients including functional joint axis determination of the knee of which MR imaging was available in eight patients both pre- and postoperatively. Transverse plane gait parameters were calculated using both approaches (CONV, FUNC). Differences between examinations as well as between methods were determined.

RESULTS

Changes in femoral anteversion as measured by MR reasonably well confirm the structural changes as measured clinically and intraoperatively. The average change in mHipRotSt across the group was substantially smaller than the structural change implies. Further, using the FUNC approach led to much smaller values compared to when using the CONV approach. We address this to a mismatch between the axes determined in each method.

SIGNIFICANCE

In the presence of femoral deformity, the knee joint axis as determined via a functional method together with the conventional method (femoral epicondyles for the knee axis) allows to quantify knee rotation independent of torsional parameters of the tibia. It may therefore help to better quantify rotational malalignments in gait and improve decision making of FDO.

The effect of functional calibration methods on gait kinematics in adolescents with idiopathic rotational deformity of the femur

BACKGROUND

Due to anatomical deviations, assumptions of the conventional calibration method for gait analysis may be violated in individuals with rotational deformities of the femur. Functional calibration methods were compared with conventional methods in this group for 1) localization of the hip joint center and orientation of the knee axis, and 2) gait kinematics.

METHODS

Twenty-four adolescents with idiopathic rotational deformity of the femur underwent gait analysis and a CT scan. During standing, distance between hip joint centers and knee axis orientation were compared between calibration methods, with CT serving as reference for hip joint center estimation. Gait kinematics were compared using statistical parametric mapping.

FINDINGS

The conventional calibration method estimated the hip joint center closer to the CT reference (4±12 mm more lateral) than the functional calibration method (26 ± 20 mm more lateral). Orientation of the knee joint axis was 2.6° less internal in the functional calibration method. During gait, statistical parametric mapping revealed significantly more hip flexion, less external hip rotation during the swing phase, less knee varus-valgus motion, and larger knee flexion angles when applying the functional method.

INTERPRETATION

Functional calibration methods were less accurate in determining the hip joint center location than the conventional calibration method and resulted in a knee joint axis that was less internally rotated. Importantly, there was less knee joint angle crosstalk during gait when using the functional method. Although differences between methods on gait kinematics were within clinically acceptable limits for the sagittal plane, relatively larger differences on transversal hip kinematics may hold clinical importance.

Are we overestimating internal rotation gait by conventional modelling?

BACKGROUND

The determination of the knee joint axis (KJA) via specific calibration movements has become a promising alternative to the conventional approach to determine this axis based on regression equations or directly via marker placement on bony landmarks of the knee. Since the orientation of the KJA may differ between methods, it has direct influence on hip rotation and may therefore influence clinical decision making in context of transverse plane gait deviations.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does a functional KJA calibration lead to clinically relevant differences in hip rotation estimates during gait compared to the conventional method?

METHODS

95 subjects (age: 19.9 years; BMI: 21.1 kg/m²), including 71 patients with potential rotation malalignment, were prospectively examined and underwent 3D gait analysis. For the conventional approach the KJA was determined by applying a knee alignment device, for the functional approach subjects were asked to perform two different calibration movements. Each procedure was performed twice. Mean hip rotation in stance (mHipRotSt) was determined following the conventional and the functional KJA calibration.

RESULTS

Deming regression analysis for the comparison of conventional and functionally measured hip rotation revealed a systematic and substantial difference between methods (slope: 0.63; intercept: 0.31°). Measurement repetition with the knee alignment device revealed typical errors around 5°, whereas the functional methods lead to profoundly smaller errors around 1-2° with slightly inferior results for SQUAT compared to FLEX. However, when compared to conventional frontal plane video-taping, the conventional method seemed to reflect the more consistent results.

SIGNIFICANCE

The systematic linear discrepancy in mHipRotSt obtained by a functional approach as compared to the conventional approach appears critical since patients with severe internal or external rotation gait may be misjudged in function when receiving corrective procedures such as femoral derotation osteotomy.