Change in Gait Deviation Index after anti-tumour necrosis factor-α treatment in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis: a pilot study

Inflammatory Biomarkers and Gait Impairment in Older Adults: A Systematic Review

Peripheral inflammation and gait speed alterations are common in several neurological disorders and in the aging process, but the association between the two is not well established. The aim of this systematic literary review is to determine whether proinflammatory markers are a positive predictor for gait impairments and their complications, such as falls in older adults, and may represent a risk factor for slow gait speed and its complications. The systematic review was performed in line with the Preferred Report Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A protocol for literature searches was structured a priori and designed according to the International Perspective Register of Systemic Review (PROSPERO: CRD42023451108). Peer-reviewed original articles were identified by searching seven electronic databases: Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), SciVerse (ScienceDirect), Scopus, PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The search strategy was formulated based on a combination of controlled descriptors and/or keywords related to the topic and a manual search was conducted of the reference lists from the initially selected studies to identify other eligible studies. The studies were thoroughly screened using the following inclusion criteria: older adults, spatiotemporal gait characteristics, and proinflammatory markers. A meta-analysis was not performed due to the heterogeneity of the studies, and the results were narratively synthesized. Due to the clinical and methodological heterogeneity, the studies were combined in a narrative synthesis, grouped by the type of biomarkers evaluated. A standardized data extraction form was used to collect the following methodological outcome variables from each of the included studies: author, year, population, age, sample size, spatiotemporal gait parameters such as gait velocity, and proinflammatory markers such as TNF-α, high sensitivity C-reactive (CRP) proteins, and IL-6. We included 21 out of 51 studies in our review, which examined the association between inflammatory biomarkers and gait impairment. This review highlights the role of TNF-α, CRP, and IL-6 in gait impairment. Biomarkers play an important role in the decision-making process, and IL-6 can be an effective biomarker in establishing the diagnosis of slow gait speed. Further longitudinal research is needed to establish the use of molecular biomarkers in monitoring gait impairment.

Derivation of the Gait Deviation Index for Spinal Cord Injury

The Gait Deviation Index (GDI) is a dimensionless multivariate measure of overall gait pathology represented as a single score that indicates the gait deviation from a normal gait average. It is calculated using kinematic data recorded during a three-dimensional gait analysis and an orthonormal vectorial basis with 15 gait features that was originally obtained using singular value decomposition and feature analysis on a dataset of children with cerebral palsy. Ever since, it has been used as an outcome measure to study gait in several conditions, including spinal cord injury (SCI). Nevertheless, the validity of implementing the GDI in a population with SCI has not been studied yet. We investigate the application of these mathematical methods to derive a similar metric but with a dataset of adults with SCI (SCI-GDI). The new SCI-GDI is compared with the original GDI to evaluate their differences and assess the need for a specific GDI for SCI and with the WISCI II to evaluate its sensibility. Our findings show that a 21-feature basis is necessary to account for most of the variance in gait patterns in the SCI population and to provide high-quality reconstructions of the gait curves included in the dataset and in foreign data. Furthermore, using only the first 15 features of our SCI basis, the fidelity of the reconstructions obtained in our population is higher than that when using the basis of the original GDI. The results showed that the SCI-GDI discriminates most levels of the WISCI II scale, except for levels 12 and 18. Statistically significant differences were found between both indexes within each WISCI II level except for 12, 20, and the control group (p < 0.05). In all levels, the average GDI value was greater than the average SCI-GDI value, but the difference between both indexes is larger in data with greater impairment and it reduces progressively toward a normal gait pattern. In conclusion, the implementation of the original GDI in SCI may lead to overestimation of gait function, and our new SCI-GDI is more sensitive to larger gait impairment than the GDI. Further validation of the SCI-GDI with other scales validated in SCI is needed.

Three decades of gait index development: A comparative review of clinical and research gait indices

BACKGROUND

A wide variety of indices have been developed to quantify gait performance markers and associate them with their respective pathologies. Indices scores have enabled better decisions regarding patient treatments and allowed for optimized monitoring of the evolution of their condition. The extensive range of human gait indices presented over the last 30 years is evaluated and summarized in this narrative literature review exploring their application in clinical and research environments.

METHODS

The analysis will explore historical and modern gait indices, focusing on the clinical efficacy with respect to their proposed pathology, age range, and associated parameter limits. Features, methods, and clinically acceptable errors are discussed while simultaneously assessing indices advantages and disadvantages. This review analyses all indices published between 1994 and February 2021 identified using the Medline, PubMed, ScienceDirect, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases.

FINDINGS

A total of 30 indices were identified as noteworthy for clinical and research purposes and another 137 works were included for discussion. The indices were divided in three major groups: observational (13), instrumented (16) and hybrid (1). The instrumented indices were further sub-divided in six groups, namely kinematic- (4), spatiotemporal- (5), kinetic- (2), kinematic- and kinetic- (2), electromyographic- (1) and Inertial Measurement Unit-based indices (2).

INTERPRETATION

This work is one of the first reviews to summarize observational and instrumented gait indices, exploring their applicability in research and clinical contexts. The aim of this review is to assist members of these communities with the selection of the proper index for the group in analysis.

Application of the Gait Deviation Index to Study Gait Impairment in Adult Population With Spinal Cord Injury: Comparison With the Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury Levels

The Gait Deviation Index (GDI) is a multivariate measure of overall gait pathology based on 15 gait features derived from three-dimensional (3D) kinematic data. GDI aims at providing a comprehensive, easy to interpret, and clinically meaningful metric of overall gait function. It has been used as an outcome measure to study gait in several conditions: cerebral palsy (CP), post-stroke hemiparetic gait, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and Parkinson’s disease, among others. Nevertheless, its use in population with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) has not been studied yet. The aim of the present study was to investigate the applicability of the GDI to SCI through the assessment of the relationship of the GDI with the Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury (WISCI) II. 3D gait kinematics of 34 patients with incomplete SCI (iSCI) was obtained. Besides, 3D gait kinematics of a sample of 50 healthy volunteers (HV) was also gathered with Codamotion motion capture system. A total of 302 (iSCI) and 446 (HV) strides were collected. GDI was calculated for each stride and grouped for each WISCI II level. HV data were analyzed as an additional set. Normal distribution for each group was assessed with Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. Afterward, ANOVA tests were performed between each pair of WISCI II levels to identify differences among groups (p < 0.05). The results showed that the GDI was normally distributed across all WISCI II levels in both iSCI and HV groups. Furthermore, our results showed an increasing relationship between the GDI values and WISCI II levels in subjects with iSCI, but only discriminative in WISCI II levels 13, 19, and 20. The index successfully distinguished HV group from all the individuals with iSCI. Findings of this study indicated that the GDI is not an appropriate multivariate walking metric to represent the deviation of gait pattern in adult population with iSCI from a normal gait profile when it is compared with the levels of walking impairment described by the WISCI II. Future work should aim at defining and validating an overall gait index derived from 3D kinematic gait variables appropriate for SCI, additionally taking into account other walking ability outcome measures.

Effect of Intraarticular Corticosteroid Foot Injections on Walking Function in Children With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate gait dynamics and self-reported foot-related disability before and after treatment with intraarticular corticosteroid injections (IACI) in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and foot involvement, and determined whether children with polyarticular and oligoarticular disease responded similarly to IACI treatment.

METHODS

Forty-three children (35 girls and 8 boys) with JIA were consecutively recruited (mean ± SD age 11.1 ± 4.2 years, mean disease duration 4.5 ± 3.6 years). Sixty-five percent were diagnosed with polyarthritis. All children received IACI treatment for ankle and/or foot joint synovitis. Fifty-eight percent received additional injections in the knee and/or hip joint. Forty healthy children, matched by age and sex, comprised the control group. Gait dynamics and foot-related disability were assessed before IACI treatment and at 3 weeks and 3 months following the injections.

RESULTS

Foot-related disability and inflammatory joint symptoms improved following treatment. Gait dynamics were compromised before treatment and did not improve following treatment (mean ± SD nondimensional walking speed 0.49 ± 0.05 in the control group; 0.44 ± 0.07 in the JIA group pretreatment; 0.43 ± 0.10 in the JIA group 3 weeks following treatment; and 0.43 ± 0.07 in the JIA group 3 months following treatment) (P = 0.001 in controls versus pretreatment JIA group, P = 0.45 JIA over time). Mean ± SD ankle power was 3.81 ± 0.67 in the control group; 3.01 ± 1.19 in the JIA group pretreatment; 3.19 ± 1.30 in the JIA group 3 weeks after treatment; and 3.22 ± 1.03 in the JIA group 3 months after treatment (P < 0.001 in controls versus pretreatment JIA group, P = 0.51 JIA over time). The ankle power to hip power ratio was reduced (P = 0.01 in controls versus pretreatment JIA group), indicating a power shift from the ankles to the hips, which was more prominent in children with polyarthritis.

CONCLUSION

As a result of IACI treatment, improvements were found in self-reported foot-related disability and inflammatory joint symptoms, but gait dynamics were unchanged. Children with polyarticular disease and those with greater self-reported walking difficulties prior to IACI treatment demonstrated worse outcomes, and children in these groups should be monitored carefully after treatment.

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.

The use of the Gait Deviation Index for the evaluation of participants following total hip arthroplasty: An explorative randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

In this paper, the Gait Deviation Index (GDI) was used as a convenient method to evaluate pre-to-postoperative gait pattern changes after total hip arthroplasty and identify factors which might be predictive of outcome.

DESIGN

Three-dimensional gait data from a randomized clinical trial was used to determine changes in gait quality in participants walking at self-selected speed. Upon completion of the first assessment, the participants were randomly assigned to either resurfacing hip arthroplasty or conventional hip arthroplasty. The outcome was changes in overall gait 'quality' measured with GDI during the 6-month post-surgery follow-up period.

RESULTS

38 participants with severe unilateral primary hip osteoarthritis took part in the trial. We found no difference in change scores between the two treatment groups; 1.9 [95%CI: -0.3 to 4.0] or between change scores for the non-operated and the operated limbs; 0.3 [95%CI: -2.3 to 1.7]. However, the score for the two groups (pooled data) improved after surgery by 4.4 [95%CI: 1.8-7.0]. The single level regression analysis identified the preoperative GDI score as a strong predictor of outcome (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Six months after surgery, there was no additional effect of resurfacing hip arthroplasty on GDI scores compared with conventional hip arthroplasty. Participants with the most pathological preoperative gait pattern improved the most. The GDI increased, which indicates an overall improvement in gait pathology after surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01229293.