Kinematic Alignment Technique Outperforms Mechanical Alignment in Simultaneous Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results of kinematic alignment (KA) with those of mechanical alignment (MA) in single-stage bilateral total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: In this double-blinded randomized controlled trial, 65 patients who had bilateral knee osteoarthritis underwent simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty. One knee was randomly selected to be operated on with the calipered-KA technique and the other with MA. The participants were assessed via the Oxford Knee Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire, and visual analog scale before the surgery and the same plus the Forgotten Joint Score at their last follow-up visit, 2 years postoperatively. Maximum knee flexion and the time reaching maximum knee flexion, named the recovery time, were also recorded. Hip-knee-ankle angle, medial proximal tibial angle, and lateral distal femoral angle were measured before and after the surgery using 3-joint-view radiographs. RESULTS: At 2 years, there were significant differences between the KA and MA techniques in terms of duration of surgery, recovery time, and final Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Forgotten Joint Score, and maximum flexion range in favor of KA (P < .05), but no significant difference in visual analog scale score or Oxford Knee Score. In patients who have a preferred knee, the KA knee was preferred over the MA knee by most patients. No prosthetic failure or revision was reported in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The KA technique yields acceptable functional outcomes compared to the MA technique. The KA technique was associated with a shorter surgery time, a faster recovery time, and higher patient satisfaction in 2-year follow-ups. Larger multicenter studies with longer follow-ups are warranted to confirm these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Estimation of lower back muscle force in a lifting task using wearable IMUs.

Low back pain is commonly reported in occupational settings due to factors such as heavy lifting and poor ergonomic practices, often resulting in significant healthcare expenses and lowered productivity. Assessment tools for human motion and ergonomic risk at the workplace are still limited. Therefore, this study aimed to assess lower back muscle and joint reaction forces in laboratory conditions using wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) during weight lifting, a frequently high-risk workplace task. Ten able-bodied participants were instructed to lift a 28 lbs. box while surface electromyography sensors, IMUs, and a camera-based motion capture system recorded their muscle activity and body motion. The data recorded by IMUs and motion capture system were used to estimate lower back muscle and joint reaction forces via musculoskeletal modeling. Lower back muscle patterns matched well with electromyography recordings. The normalized mean absolute differences between muscle forces estimated based on measurements of IMUs and cameras were less than 25 %, and the statistical parametric mapping results indicated no significant difference between the forces estimated by both systems. However, abrupt changes in motion, such as lifting initiation, led to significant differences (p < 0.05) between the muscle forces. Furthermore, the maximum L5-S1 joint reaction force estimated using IMU data was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than those estimated by cameras during weight lifting and lowering. The study showed how kinematic errors from IMUs propagated through the musculoskeletal model and affected the estimations of muscle forces and joint reaction forces. Our findings showed the potential of IMUs for in-field ergonomic risk evaluations.

A comparative study of biomechanical assessments in laboratory and field settings for manual material handling tasks using extractor tools and exoskeletons.

To enhance physical capabilities of workers who regularly perform physically demanding tasks involving heavy lifting and awkward postures, various tools and occupational exoskeletons can be used. Most of the studies aiming to explore the efficiency of these tools and exoskeletons have been performed in confined and controlled laboratory spaces, which do not represent the real-world work environment. This study aimed to compare the outcome of biomechanical assessment of using a back support exoskeleton and assistive tools (Lever and Jake) in the procedure of a high demanding manual material handling task versus the results found by performing the same task in a laboratory. Ten able-bodied participants and ten able-bodied utility workers performed the same manhole removal task in-lab and in-field, respectively, with the aid of an exoskeleton and Lever and Jake tools. Muscle activity and Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) scores were recorded using surface electromyography and inertial measurement units, respectively and compared between in-lab and in-field trials. The field experiments indicated significant differences (p < 0.05) in normalized muscle activity across most muscles when compared to laboratory data. These results revealed how muscle activity is affected by the controlled lab setting compared to real-world field conditions. However, REBA scores indicate similar ergonomic implications regardless of the utilization of exoskeletons or tools. These findings underscore that real-world field assessments are crucial for evaluating ergonomic risks and effects of occupational exoskeletons and tools to account for environmental factors and workers' skills in ergonomic evaluations of this nature.