| Literature DB >> 34998420 |
Jessica C Böpple1, Michael Tanner1, Sarah Campos1, Christian Fischer1, Sebastian Müller2, Sebastian I Wolf1, Julian Doll3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ankle fractures are common fractures in trauma surgery. Several studies have compared gait patterns between affected patients and control groups. However, no one used the Heidelberg Foot Measurement Method in combination with statistical parametric mapping of the entire gait cycle in this patient cohort. We sought to identify possible mobility deficits in the tibio-talar joint and medial arch in patients after ankle fractures as a sign of stiffness and pain that could result in a pathological gait pattern. We focused on the tibio-talar flexion as it is the main movement in the tibio-talar joint. Moreover, we examined the healing progress over time.Entities:
Keywords: American orthopedic foot and ankle society hindfoot score; Foot kinematics; Gait analysis; Heidelberg foot measurement method; ankle fractures; Operative treatment
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 34998420 PMCID: PMC8742407 DOI: 10.1186/s13047-021-00505-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Foot Ankle Res ISSN: 1757-1146 Impact factor: 2.303
Fig. 1Marker placement. Abbreviations mentioned in Table 3 [23]
Description of the marker placement of the Heidelberg Foot Measurement Method [23]
| Marker labelling | Description |
|---|---|
| LEP and MEP | Lateral and medial of the knee at the estimated knee flexion axis |
| TTU | most prominent part of tibial tuberosity |
| SH1 and SH2 | 2 points on the medial surface of the tibia avoiding contact to foot extensor muscles and dividing the tibia into approximately three equal parts |
| LML and MML | Lateral and medial malleolus, placed such that the line through the markers determines the largest distance |
| MCL and LCL | Medial and lateral point on the calcaneus defined by the heel alignment device as described in the text |
| CCL | Placed dorsal on the calcaneus at the landmark at the insertion of the Achilles tendon |
| NAV | Placed on the navicular such that in the frontal view the marker axis is seen at 45° to the floor. In the case that the foot extensor tendon interferes, this marker has to be placed more medially |
| PMT1 | Joint gap between first cuneiform and MT I placed such that in the frontal view the marker axis is seen at 45° to the floor |
| DMT1 | Head of MT I at 45° angle between marker axis and floor |
| HLX | Midpoint of the distal phalanx of hallux |
| DMT2 | Head of MT II DMT5 Head of MT V at 45° angle between marker axis and floor |
| PMT5 | Tuberositas ossis MT V |
Demographic data of the control group in comparison to the intervention group
| CG | IG (9 weeks) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | 20 | 14 | |
| age, in years | 47.2 ± 10.4 | 50.9 ± 16.2 | 0.23 |
| height, in cm | 174.0 ± 9.1 | 171.0 ± 7.6 | 0.27 |
| weight, in kg | 73.0 ± 14.0 | 78.5 ± 13.6 | 0.26 |
| gender | 0.27 | ||
| 9 | 3 | ||
| 11 | 11 |
abbreviations: CG = control group; IG = intervention group; SD = standard deviation; p ≤ 0.05 considered as statistically significant, values are presented as mean ± SD as appropriate
Angles of the Heidelberg Foot Measurement Method [23]
| Angle | Description |
|---|---|
| Tibio-talar flexion | Flexion between tibia and talus (represented by the calcaneal and navicular motion) as rotation around the malleolar line, approximately sagittal plane |
| Medial arch angle | Absolute angle in 3D between line from medial calcaneus marker to navicular and MT I, approximately sagittal plane |
| Subtalar inversion | Rotation of calcaneus around subtalar axis, approximately frontal plane |
Fig. 2Study flow
Fig. 3Foot kinematics and statistical parametric mapping. A foot kinematics of the tibio-talar dorsal flexion, foot tibial dorsal flexion,medial arch and subtalar inversion over the whole gait cycle shown for the intervention group after 9 weeks (red solid line) and 26 weeks (blue dashed line) as well as for the control group (grey bar); thin dotted color-coded lines are the 95% quantiles; B every column represents the comparison of two clinical groups (first column: control group versus intervention group after 9 weeks; second column: control group versus intervention group after 26 weeks; third column: intervention group after 9 weeks versus intervention group after 26 weeks). Every line represents one angle with the different comparisons
Values of the tibio-talar dorsal flexion, foot tibial dorsal flexion and medial arch. ROM over the whole gait cycle shown for the intervention group after 9 weeks (IG1) and 26 weeks (IG 2) as well as for the control group (CG); p ≤ 0.05 considered as statistically significant; values are presented as median (IQR) as appropriate
| CG | IG 1 | IG 2 | p-value CG vs IG1 | p-value CG vs IG2 | p-value G1 vs IG2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 40 | 14 | 14 | |||
| Tibio-Talar Dorsal Flexion, in degree | 24.8 (19.6–29) | 15.9 (11.439–18.4) | 18.3 (16.9–19.8) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.081 |
| Foot Tibia Dorsal Flexion, in degree | 36 (30.2–38.8) | 21.3 [17–23] | 26.8 (24.4–31) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Subtalar Inversion, in degree | 11.1 (9.4–13.5) | 6.7 (5.3–7.7) | 8.9 (7.5–11.1) | < 0.001 | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Medial Arch,in degree | 18 (16.5–20.1) | 12.5 (9.85–15.5) | 16.3 (14.6–18.6) | < 0.001 | 0.009 | 0.027 |
Values of cadence and speed. Values over the whole gait cycle shown for the intervention group after 9 weeks (IG1) and 26 weeks (IG 2) as well as for the control group (CG); p ≤ 0.05 considered as statistically significant; values are presented as median (IQR) as appropriate
| CG | IG 1 | IG 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 20 | 14 | 14 | |||
| Cadence, in steps per minute | 115 (109–118) | 103 (95.5–111) | 110 (108–118) | 0.001 | 0.26 | 0.039 |
| Speed, in m/s | 1.37 (1.18–1.49) | 0.92 (0.65–1.08) | 1.15 (1.05–1.2) | < 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Fig. 4Ground reaction force and statistical parametric mapping. A GRF over the whole gait cycle shown for the intervention group after 9 weeks (red solid line) and 26 weeks (blue dashed line) as well as for the control group (grey bar); thin dotted color-coded lines are the 95% quantiles; B every column represents the comparison of two clinical groups (first column: control group versus intervention group after 9 weeks; second column: control group versus intervention group after 26 weeks; third column: intervention group after 9 weeks versus intervention group after 26 weeks)
Values of the GRF” values over the whole gait cycle shown for the intervention group after 9 weeks (IG1) and 26 weeks (IG 2) as well as for the control group (CG); p ≤ 0.05 considered as statistically significant; values are presented as median (IQR) as appropriate.
| CG | IG 1 | IG 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 40 | 14 | 14 | |||
| GRF, in N/kg | 11.7 (11.3–12.5) | 10.2 (10–10.6) | 11 (10.7–11.4) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.008 |
Fig. 5Repeated Measures Correlations between gait analysis parameters and AOFAS