Joseph Zeni1, Kathleen Madara2, Hunter Witmer3, Riley Gerhardt4, James Rubano5. 1. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, School of Health Professions, Physical Therapy Program - North, Newark, NJ 07107, United States; University of Delaware, Biomechanics and Movement Science Program, Newark, DE 19713, United States. Electronic address: joseph.zeni@rutgers.edu. 2. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Department of Physical Therapy, Newark, NJ 07107, United States; University of Delaware, Department of Physical Therapy, Newark, DE 19713, United States. 3. Thomas Jefferson University, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, PA 19107, United States. 4. University of Delaware, Department of Physical Therapy, Newark, DE 19713, United States. 5. Center for Advanced Joint Replacement, Christiana Care Health Systems, Wilmington Hospital, Wilmington, DE 19801, United States; Delaware Orthopaedic Specialists, Newark, DE 19713, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the biomechanical outcomes of different surgical approaches for hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare hip, pelvic, and trunk kinematics and kinetics between individuals who underwent a posterior or anterolateral approach. METHODS: Forty-five individuals between 40 and 80 years old underwent motion analysis during overground gait prior to hip arthroplasty and 3 months after surgery. Walking speed, hip flexion angle, hip extension angle, adduction angle and moment, trunk angle, trunk lean, and pelvis drop were compared between approaches. FINDINGS: There were 30 subjects in the posterior group and 15 subjects in the anterolateral group. The groups did not change differently over time as there were no significant interaction effects. However, there were main effects for time; walking speed increased 19.9% (p < .001), hip flexion angle increased 3.3 degrees (p = 0.014) and peak hip extension increased 4.5 degrees (p = .001), and peak hip adduction significantly increased 1.9 degrees (p = .004) for the sample as a whole. Trunk angle (p = .283) and trunk lean (p = .401) did not significantly change between time points, but there was a significant increase in pelvic drop (p = .003). INTERPRETATION: Surgical approach did not affect biomechanical outcomes 3 months after arthroplasty. Both groups showed improvement in sagittal plane hip kinetics and kinematics. However, increased pelvic drop may be indicative of residual hip weakness in both groups.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the biomechanical outcomes of different surgical approaches for hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare hip, pelvic, and trunk kinematics and kinetics between individuals who underwent a posterior or anterolateral approach. METHODS: Forty-five individuals between 40 and 80 years old underwent motion analysis during overground gait prior to hip arthroplasty and 3 months after surgery. Walking speed, hip flexion angle, hip extension angle, adduction angle and moment, trunk angle, trunk lean, and pelvis drop were compared between approaches. FINDINGS: There were 30 subjects in the posterior group and 15 subjects in the anterolateral group. The groups did not change differently over time as there were no significant interaction effects. However, there were main effects for time; walking speed increased 19.9% (p < .001), hip flexion angle increased 3.3 degrees (p = 0.014) and peak hip extension increased 4.5 degrees (p = .001), and peak hip adduction significantly increased 1.9 degrees (p = .004) for the sample as a whole. Trunk angle (p = .283) and trunk lean (p = .401) did not significantly change between time points, but there was a significant increase in pelvic drop (p = .003). INTERPRETATION: Surgical approach did not affect biomechanical outcomes 3 months after arthroplasty. Both groups showed improvement in sagittal plane hip kinetics and kinematics. However, increased pelvic drop may be indicative of residual hip weakness in both groups.
Authors: Anil Bhave; Michael Mont; Scott Tennis; Michele Nickey; Roland Starr; Gracia Etienne Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Robin M Queen; Jordan F Schaeffer; Robert J Butler; Carl C Berasi; Scott S Kelley; David E Attarian; Michael P Bolognesi Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Robin M Queen; Robert J Butler; Tyler S Watters; Scott S Kelley; David E Attarian; Michael P Bolognesi Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 4.757