Person:

Iversen, Maura

Background: It is not well understood why one in five patients report poor outcomes following knee arthroplasty. This study evaluated changes in knee biomechanics, and perceived pain among patients reporting either a good or a poor outcome in knee-related quality of life after total knee arthroplasty. Methods: Twenty-eight patients (mean age 66 (SD 7) years) were included in this prospective study. Within one month of knee arthroplasty and one year after surgery, patients underwent three-dimensional (3D) gait analysis, completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and rated perceived pain using a visual analogue scale. A “good outcome” was defined as a change greater than the minimally detectable change in the KOOS knee-related quality of life, and a “poor outcome” was defined as change below the minimally detectable change. Nineteen patients (68%) were classified as having a good outcome. Groups were analyzed separately and knee biomechanics were compared using a two-way repeated measures ANOVA. Differences in pain between groups were evaluated using Mann Whitney U test. Results: Patients classified as having a good outcome improved significantly in most knee gait biomechanical outcomes including increased knee flexion-extension range, reduced peak varus angle, increased peak flexion moment, and reduced peak valgus moment. The good outcome group also displayed a significant increase in walking speed, a reduction (normalization) of stance phase duration (% of gait cycle) and increased passive knee extension. Whereas, the only change in knee biomechanics, one year after surgery, for patients classified as having a poor outcome was a significant reduction in peak varus angle. No differences in pain postoperatively were found between groups. Conclusion: Patients reporting a good outcome in knee-related quality of life improved in knee biomechanics during gait, while patients reporting a poor outcome, despite similar reduction in pain, remained unchanged in knee biomechanics one year after total knee arthroplasty. With regards to surgeon-controlled biomechanical factors, surgery may most successfully address frontal plane knee alignment. However, achieving a good outcome in patient-reported knee-related quality of life may be related to dynamic improvements in the sagittal plane.

Purpose The current literature lacks sufficient information about improvements in gait patterns and function after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and whether patients return to full function. This study evaluated change in gait, performance-based function, and self-reported function 1 year after TKA in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis and how these aspects interrelate. Methods: A total of 28 patients (64 % female) with knee osteoarthritis, with a mean age of 66 (±7) years, and 25 age- and gender-matched controls participated in this prospective cohort study. Three-dimensional gait analysis generated comprehensive measures of kinematic and kinetic gait deviations, respectively. Participants completed the Five Times Sit-to-Stand (5STS) test, and the self-reported questionnaire Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), at baseline prior to surgery and 1 year after TKA. Results: Kinetic gait deviations of both the operated and non-operated limb persisted in patients with knee osteoarthritis at 1 year after surgery, while kinematic gait patterns were comparable to controls. Performance on the 5STS and KOOS scores in patients with knee osteoarthritis improved significantly 1 year after surgery (effect size 0.5–1.5), but did not reach the level of controls. Ten patients with knee osteoarthritis (36 %) exceeded the minimally detectable change on the 5STS. Conclusion: Measures of overall gait patterns and the 5STS revealed improvements in function 1 year after TKA, but were not restored to the level of healthy controls. Based on change in 5STS performance, we identified patients with substantial improvements in gait patterns. Self-reported measures of function could not detect differences between patients improving in 5STS performance and those who did not. These findings highlight the use of the 5STS in clinical practice since improvement on this test seems to follow the reduction in gait pattern deviations. Level of evidence II.