RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Osseointegration (OI) is an emerging technique that allows a direct connection between the bone and a titanium metal implant, allowing the direct attachment of bone-anchored prostheses (BAP) to address the problems associated with socket prostheses. This review article aims to compare the biomechanical features of gait when using a transfemoral BAP in comparison to healthy gait, and in comparison to the gait of traditional transfemoral socket prosthesis users. METHODS: A computer-based literature search of electronic databases since inception (ranging from 1967 to 2004 depending on the database) to June 14, 2022, identified peer-reviewed articles focusing on the temporal-spatial, kinematic, kinetic, and electromyography data related to transfemoral BAP gait. Eight articles were included that focused on these biomechanical features of gait in adults with BAP and were compared with socket prosthesis users or healthy gait. RESULTS: Compared with healthy participants, prosthesis users after OI surgery have slower speed and cadence, lower symmetry, longer duration of swing phase, increased pelvic and trunk motion, more hip extension, larger moments on the intact limb, and lower forces on the prosthetic side. Compared with transfemoral socket prosthesis gait, BAP gait shows faster cadence and longer duration of support phase. There are limited and inconsistent data on changes in trunk, pelvic, and hip motion with OI. CONCLUSION: Based on this review, transfemoral BAP improve spatial-temporal parameters closer to normal gait when compared to socket gait, but there are persisting deficits compared with healthy gait. Additional studies are needed to confirm the changes in kinematics and kinetics when walking with a BAP.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The Helen Hayes anatomical model is commonly used in clinical gait analysis with standard medial/lateral knee and thigh markers. METHODS: To quantify soft-tissue artifacts associated with the thigh marker following osseointegration surgery, we added an "implant marker" on the implant extending from the femur, with the objective of identifying the differences in the angular kinematics when using the standard versus implant marker. One female adult with an osseointegrated transfemoral prosthesis walked overground for three trials, and common kinematic measures were calculated from motion capture data. FINDINGS: The results indicated that, when using the thigh marker, a peak of knee varus occurred during the swing phase on the prosthetic side, which is unusual during gait and not feasible for hinge joint prostheses. When using the implant marker, knee varus/valgus was closer to normative. Using the thigh marker, the results showed an internal hip rotation at the start of stance and during the mid and terminal swing phases. In contrast, external hip rotation occurred in both stance and swing phases using the implant marker. Moreover, when selecting the medial knee marker instead of the thigh marker, the angular kinematics and range of motion of knee varus/valgus and hip rotation were comparable to those for the implant marker. INTERPRETATION: This finding suggests that when studying osseointegration gait, using an implant marker will result in more accurate femoral and knee joint motion than using the thigh marker. Changing the selection of markers can reduce the errors of knee varus/valgus and hip kinematics in osseointegrated transfemoral prosthetic gait.
