| Literature DB >> 35820837 |
Ting Zhu1, Ya Wang1,2, Fei Tian1,3, Wenjin Wang1, Rongzhou Zhong2, Hua Zhai4,5, Shaobai Wang6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trimalleolar fracture is a common ankle fracture with serious complications and costly healthcare problem. Most studies used clinical assessments to evaluate the functional status of the patients. Although clinical assessments are valid, they are static and subjective. Dynamic, objective and precise evaluations such as gait analysis are needed. Ankle biomechanics studies on gait in patients with trimalleolar fractures are still rare. This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes and gait biomechanics in patients with trimalleolar fractures in the early postoperative period and compared to healthy controls.Entities:
Keywords: Ankle trimalleolar fracture; Biomechanics; Clinical assessments; Gait
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35820837 PMCID: PMC9275242 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05615-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.562
Baseline characteristics of participants (Mean ± SD)
| Trimalleolar fractures ( | Healthy controls (n = 12) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 42.20 ± 10.20 | 32.00 ± 13.98 | 0.070 |
| Height (cm) | 164.30 ± 7.45 | 165.83 ± 8.35 | 0.658 |
| Weight (kg) | 63.90 ± 8.67 | 61.75 ± 7.18 | 0.532 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.60 ± 2.32 | 22.41 ± 1.52 | 0.159 |
| Male/female | 7/5 | 6/6 | 0.682 |
| Injured/Dominant foot (n): right/left | 8/4 | 12/0 | |
| Time from surgery to gait analysis (mo) | 4.50 ± 1.19 (3-7) | ||
| OMAS, mean (range) | |||
| Pain | 21 ± 2.11 (20-25) | ||
| Stiffness | 3 ± 4.83 (0-10) | ||
| Swelling | 2 ± 2.58 (0-5) | ||
| Stairs climbing | 6 ± 2.11 (5-10) | ||
| Running | 0 ± 0 (0-0) | ||
| Jumping | 0 ± 0 (0-0) | ||
| Squatting | 3 ± 2.58 (0-5) | ||
| Supporting | 6.5 ± 4.74 (0-10) | ||
| Work activity of daily life | 14.5 ± 2.84 (10-20) | ||
| Total score | 56 ± 11.26 (35-75) | ||
SD Standard deviation, BMI Body mass index, OMAS The Olerud and Molander Ankle Score
Clinical assessments of the patients with trimalleolar fractures (Mean ± SD)
| Injured side | Noninjured side (n = 12) | Difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Circumference ankle (cm) | 50.73 ± 3.11 | 49.32 ± 2.98 | <0.001 | 1.41 ± 0.61 |
| ROM dorsiflexion (degree) | 7.08 ± 3.91 | 13.08 ± 4.10 | 0.002 | 6.00 ± 5.13 |
| ROM plantar flexion (degree) | 33.33 ± 8.07 | 41.41 ± 7.83 | 0.004 | 8.08 ± 7.77 |
| ROM inversion (degree) | 13.75 ± 6.78 | 26.25 ± 9.64 | <0.001 | 12.50 ± 7.76 |
| ROM eversion (degree) | 6.00 ± 4.17 | 13.25 ± 5.77 | 0.004 | 7.25 ± 6.92 |
SD Standard deviation, ROM Range of motion. The difference of ankle joint circumference is swelling. Swelling = (Circumference of injured side) - (Circumference of noninjured side), and the difference of angle = (ROM of noninjured side) - (ROM of injured side)
Temporal-spatial gait parameters of the patients with trimalleolar fractures and both sides of the healthy controls
| Injured side ( | Noninjured side (n = 12) | Healthy controls ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step length (m) | 0.48 ± 0.13 | 0.41 ± 0.15 | 0.66 ± 0.06 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.008 |
| Step width (m) | 0.18 ± 0.04 | 0.18 ± 0.04 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.434 |
| Walking speed (m/s) | 0.65 ± 0.29 | 0.66 ± 0.29 | 1.29 ± 0.13 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.041 |
| Single support time (%) | 16.27 ± 5.63 | 20.40 ± 2.71 | 32.27 ± 2.96 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.008 |
| Symmetry index step length (%) | 21.44 ± 26.34 | −0.49 ± 6.02 | 0.014 | |||
| Symmetry index step Width (%) | −0.48 ± 7.07 | −4.65 ± 14.17 | 0.397 | |||
| Symmetry index walking speed (%) | −3.74 ± 4.01 | −0.35 ± 3.67 | 0.052 | |||
Symmetry index single support time (%) | −27.63 ± 27.35 | −0.94 ± 7.23 | 0.028 | |||
P1 Injured side VS healthy controls, P2 Noninjured side VS healthy controls, P3 Injured side VS noninjured side
Comparison of dynamic plantar pressure features between the injured sides of patients with trimalleolar fractures and both sides of the healthy controls
| Region | Peak plantar pressure (kpa) | Contact area (cm2) | Contact time (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trimalleolar | Healthy controls (n = 24) | Trimalleolar fractures (n = 12) | Healthy controls (n = 24) | Trimalleolar fractures (n = 12) | Healthy controls (n = 24) | |
| HF | 358.12 ± 96.90 | 30.78 ± 3.59 | 57.33 ± 7.17 | |||
| MF | 127.68 ± 39.75 | 155.37 ± 47.08 | 22.60 ± 5.64 | 25.81 ± 5.32 | 66.10 ± 5.57 | |
| M1 | 253.00 ± 138.61 | 277.83 ± 101.60 | 11.20 ± 2.24 | 11.93 ± 1.20 | 79.97 ± 9.04 | 82.16 ± 3.76 |
| M2 | 597.62 ± 292.83 | 9.05 ± 1.23 | 9.31 ± 0.77 | 85.32 ± 6.57 | 84.62 ± 3.61 | |
| M3 | 455.67 ± 149.56 | 9.97 ± 1.40 | 10.69 ± 0.92 | 86.76 ± 6.68 | 85.55 ± 3.11 | |
| M4 | 192.50 ± 113.27 | 246.37 ± 39.19 | 8.75 ± 0.74 | 83.40 ± 6.60 | 83.71 ± 3.31 | |
| M5 | 125.22 ± 72.11 | 184.00 ± 96.74 | 5.03 ± 0.58 | 5.43 ± 0.68 | 76.60 ± 6.32 | 75.96 ± 4.67 |
| T1 | 300.18 ± 286.80 | 417.42 ± 141.87 | 10.04 ± 0.99 | 75.26 ± 20.24 | 73.35 ± 11.52 | |
| T2 | 211.75 ± 104.20 | 3.92 ± 0.54 | 65.22 ± 13.57 | |||
| T345 | 148.08 ± 78.35 | 6.84 ± 2.03 | 63.40 ± 12.06 | |||
HF Hindfoot, MF Medial midfoot, M1 The first metatarsal head, M2 The second metatarsal head, M3 The third metatarsal head, M4 The fourth metatarsal head, M5 The fifth metatarsal head, T1 Hallux, T1 The second toe, T3-5 The third to fifth toes
*P < 0.05
Fig. 1Comparison of electromyography characteristics between the injured sides of patients with trimalleolar fractures and both sides of the healthy controls. TA: tibial anterior muscle, PL: peroneal longus, GM: gastrocnemius medial, GL: gastrocnemius lateral, S: soleus muscle. IEMG: integrated electromyography. ** P < 0.05. ns: no significant difference
Fig. 2Correlations between the symmetry index (A) step width, (B) walking speed) and the difference of ankle inversion ROM. ROM: range of motion