The use of pedobarographic analysis to evaluate movement patterns in unstable total knee arthroplasty: A proof of concept study.

BACKGROUND: Definition and clinical diagnosis of instability in TKA is challenging. Sensitive and objective biomechanical tools to aid diagnosis are currently lacking. This proof-of-concept study evaluates the use of pressure mat analyses to identify abnormal biomechanical loading patterns associated with TKA instability within an outpatient clinical setting. METHODS: Twenty participants were examined: 10 patients with suspected unilateral TKA instability and 10 healthy controls. Participants underwent bilateral stance and gait tests measuring time and limb loading pressure parameters. Gait was divided into three phases: heel strike, mid-foot and toe off. Pressure recordings are expressed relative to bodyweight. Between-limb loading discrepancies were calculated in TKA patients and controls, and these differences were then compared between groups. Statistical significance was accepted at p < 0.05. RESULTS: TKA patients consistentlyoffloadedpressure away from the operated limb, whereas healthy controls exhibited more even limb loading throughout bilateral stance (p < 0.05). TKA patients exhibited greater discrepancy in overall step contact time between limbs (-0.09 s ± 0.16 s; p = 0.016) compared to controls (0.06 s ± 0.08 s; p = 0.04). Post-hoc tests showed significant between-group differences during midfoot (-0.04 s ± 0.07 s; p = 0.03) and toe-off (0.05 s ± 0.14 s; p = 0.013). Between-group differences in limb loading discrepancy were evident at heel strike (-9.24% ± 2.11%; p = 0.0166) and toe-off (-10.34% ± 5.51%; p = 0.0496). DISCUSSION: Pedobarographic measurements demonstrated differences in mechanical loading patterns in patients with TKA instability compared to healthy controls during functional tasks and warrants further investigation. This may prove to be a useful clinical diagnostic tool in identifying patients that would benefit from revision surgery or physical therapy.

Variation in ligamentous laxity in well-functioning total knee arthroplasty is not associated with clinical outcomes or functional ability.

BACKGROUND: Around 20% of revision knee arthroplasty procedures are carried out for a diagnosis of instability. Clinical evaluation of instability is primarily through physical stress testing of knee ligamentous laxity and joint space opening. It is assumed that increased knee ligament laxity is associated with instability of the knee and, by association, reduced physical function. The range of knee ligament laxity in asymptomatic patients with total knee arthroplasty has however not been reported, nor has the association with measures of physical outcomes. METHODS: Patients who reported being happy with the outcomes of TKA and denied any feelings of knee instability were evaluated at routine follow-up clinicas. Knee ligamentous stability was evaluated seperately by 2 blinded assessors in both coronal and saggital planes. Assessors classified the ligamentous stability as 'tight', 'neutrol' or 'loose'. Clinical outcome was evaluated by Oxford Knee Score, patient satisfaction metric, timed performance test, range of motion and lower limb power. Analysis of variance was employed to evaluate variables between groups with post hoc pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: In total, 42 patients were evaluated. Mean time since index surgery was 46 (SD 8) months. In the coronal plane, 11 (26.2%) were categorised as 'tight', 22 (52.4%) as 'neutral' and 9 (21.4%) as 'loose'. In the sagittal plane, 15 (35.7%) were categorised as 'tight', 17 (40.5%) as 'neutral' and 10 (23.8%) as 'loose'. There were no between-group differences in outcomes: Oxford Knee Score, range of motion, lower limb power, timed functional assessment score or in satisfaction response in either plane (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found a range of ligamentous laxity in asymptomatic patients satisfied with the outcome of their knee arthroplasty, and no association between knee laxity and physical ability.