Motion laboratory gait analysis and orthopedic resident education: preliminary results.

ABSTRACT

Gait analysis in the pediatric and adult orthopedic patient populations can adjunct the diagnosis and treatment of a multitude of musculoskeletal conditions. Understanding of normal and abnormal gait biomechanics is an important aspect of orthopedic residency; yet, there is great variability in the time residency programs dedicate to gait analysis education. The purpose of this study was to investigate if formal gait analysis education during residency improves an orthopedic resident's understanding of normal and pathologic gait. Five residency programs consisting of 81 resident subjects were surveyed at the beginning of the 2016-2017 academic year. The residents were divided into those with formal gait analysis education (group A) and those without (group B). Each resident was sent an online survey with 11 questions from former orthopedic in-training exams (OITE) regarding gait pattern analysis. The average number of correct questions was compared between the two groups with Student's t-test. Fifty-three of the 81 surveys sent out were completed. There were 23 subjects in group A and 30 in group B. All five programs and all postgraduate years (PGYs) were represented (PGY1 10, PGY2 12, PGY3 12, PGY4 6, PGY5 12). The average score for all residents was 5.6 out of 11 correct (51%). The residents from group A averaged a significantly higher score (6.3) than group B (5.0) (P = 0.017). Understanding gait biomechanics is a critical skill for orthopedic surgeons, and residency training often lacks sufficient training in their curriculum. A good understanding of gait analysis allows orthopedic surgeons to analyze gait disturbances and develop patient-specific treatment plans in adult and pediatric populations. This study found improved knowledge of gait patterns amongst orthopedic residents with formal education. Even though the residents with formal education fared better than their counterparts, the overall percent correct was still low (51%). Evidence Level 3 Prospective Cohort Study.