Dataset Information

Reproducibility and discriminant validity of two clinically feasible measurement methods to obtain coronal plane gait kinematics in participants with a lower extremity amputation.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Measuring coronal plane gait kinematics of the pelvis and trunk during rehabilitation of participants with a lower extremity amputation is important to detect asymmetries in gait which are hypothesised as associated with secondary complaints. The aim of this study was to test the reproducibility and discriminant validity of a three-dimensional (3-D; inertial measurement units) and a two-dimensional (2-D; video-based) system. METHODS:We tested the test-retest and inter-rater reproducibility of both systems and the 2-D system, respectively, in participants with a lower extremity amputation (group 1) and healthy subjects (group 2). The discriminant validity was determined with a within-group comparison for the 3-D system and with a between-group comparison for both systems. RESULTS:Both system showed to be test-retest reliable, both in group 1 (2-D system: ICC3.1agreement 0.52-0.83; 3-D system: ICC3.1agreement 0.81-0.95) and in group 2 (3-D system: ICC3.1agreement 0.33-0.92; 2-D system: ICC3.1agreement 0.54-0.95). The 2-D system was also inter-rater reliable (group 1: ICC2.1agreement 0.80-0.92; group 2: ICC2.1agreement 0.39-0.90). The within-group comparison of the 3-D system revealed a statistically significant asymmetry of 0.4°-0.5° in group 1 and no statistically significant asymmetry in group 2. The between-group comparison revealed that the maximum amplitude towards the residual limb (MARL) in the low back (3-D system) and the (residual) limb-trunk angle (2-D system) were significantly larger with a mean difference of 1.2° and 6.4°, respectively, than the maximum amplitude of healthy subjects. However, these average differences were smaller than the smallest detectable change (SDC) of group 1 for both the MARL (SDCagreement: 1.5°) and the residual limb-trunk angle (SDCagreement: 6.7°-7.6°). CONCLUSION:The 3-D and 2-D systems tested in this study were not sensitive enough to detect real differences within and between participants with a lower extremity amputation and healthy subjects although promising reproducibility parameters for some of the outcome measures.

SUBMITTER: Leijendekkers RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6528991 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTotal ankle arthroplasty (TAA) is becoming a more prevalent treatment for end-stage ankle arthritis. However, the effects of malalignment on TAA remain poorly understood.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to quantify the mechanical effects of coronal plane malalignment of the tibial insert in TAA using cadaveric gait simulation. Specifically, we asked, is there a change in (1) ankle joint congruency, (2) kinematic joint position, (3) kinematic ROM, (4) peak plantar pressure, and (5) center of pressure with varus and valgus malalignment?MethodsA modified TAA was implanted into seven cadaveric foot specimens. Wedges were used to simulate coronal plane malalignment of the tibial insert. The degree of malalignment (tibial insert angle [TIA] and talar component angle [TCA]) was quantified radiographically for neutral and 5°, 10°, and 15° varus and valgus wedges. Dynamic walking at 1/6 of physiological speed was simulated using a robotic gait simulator. A motion capture system was used to measure foot kinematics, and a pressure mat was used to measure plantar pressure. Joint congruency was quantified as the difference between TIA and TCA. Continuous joint position, joint ROM, peak plantar pressure, and center of pressure for varus and valgus malalignment compared with neutral alignment were estimated using linear mixed effects regression. Pairwise comparisons between malalignment conditions and neutral were considered significant if both the omnibus test for the overall association between outcome and malalignment and the individual pairwise comparison (adjusted for multiple comparisons within a given outcome) had p ≤ 0.05.ResultsDescriptively, the TIA and TCA were both less pronounced than the wedge angle and component incongruence was seen (R = 0.65; p < 0.001). Varus malalignment of the tibial insert shifted the tibiotalar joint into varus and internally rotated the joint. The tibiotalar joint's ROM slightly increased as the TIA shifted into varus (1.3 ± 0.7° [mean ± SD] [95% confidence interval -0.7 to 3.4]; p = 0.03), and the first metatarsophalangeal joint's ROM decreased as the TIA shifted into varus (-1.9 ± 0.9° [95% CI -5.6 to 1.7]; p = 0.007). In the sagittal plane, the naviculocuneiform joint's ROM slightly decreased as the TIA shifted into varus (-0.9 ± 0.4° [95% CI -2.1 to 0.3]; p = 0.017). Hallux pressure increased as the TIA became more valgus (59 ± 50 kPa [95% CI -88 to 207]; p = 0.006). The peak plantar pressure slightly decreased in the third and fourth metatarsals as the TIA shifted into valgus (-15 ± 17° [95% CI -65 to 37]; p = 0.03 and -8 ± 4° [95% CI -17 to 1]; p = 0.048, respectively). The fifth metatarsal's pressure slightly decreased as the TIA shifted into valgus (-18 ± 12 kPa [95% CI -51 to 15]) or varus (-7 ± 18 kPa [95% CI -58 to 45]; p = 0.002). All comparisons were made to the neutral condition.ConclusionsIn this cadaver study, coronal plane malalignment in TAA altered foot kinematics and plantar pressure. In general, varus TAA malalignment led to varus shift and internal rotation of the tibiotalar joint, a slight increase in the tibiotalar ROM, and a slight decrease in the first metatarsophalangeal ROM, while a valgus TAA malalignment was manifested primarily through increased hallux pressure with a slight off-loading of the third and fourth metatarsals.Clinical relevanceThis study may increase our understanding of the biomechanical processes that underlie the unfavorable clinical outcomes (such as, poor patient-reported outcomes or implant loosening) that have been associated with coronal plane malalignment of the tibial component in TAA.

Project description:Data are the foundation of empirical research, yet all too often the datasets underlying published papers are unavailable, incorrect, or poorly curated. This is a serious issue, because future researchers are then unable to validate published results or reuse data to explore new ideas and hypotheses. Even if data files are securely stored and accessible, they must also be accompanied by accurate labels and identifiers. To assess how often problems with metadata or data curation affect the reproducibility of published results, we attempted to reproduce Discriminant Function Analyses (DFAs) from the field of organismal biology. DFA is a commonly used statistical analysis that has changed little since its inception almost eight decades ago, and therefore provides an opportunity to test reproducibility among datasets of varying ages. Out of 100 papers we initially surveyed, fourteen were excluded because they did not present the common types of quantitative result from their DFA or gave insufficient details of their DFA. Of the remaining 86 datasets, there were 15 cases for which we were unable to confidently relate the dataset we received to the one used in the published analysis. The reasons ranged from incomprehensible or absent variable labels, the DFA being performed on an unspecified subset of the data, or the dataset we received being incomplete. We focused on reproducing three common summary statistics from DFAs: the percent variance explained, the percentage correctly assigned and the largest discriminant function coefficient. The reproducibility of the first two was fairly high (20 of 26, and 44 of 60 datasets, respectively), whereas our success rate with the discriminant function coefficients was lower (15 of 26 datasets). When considering all three summary statistics, we were able to completely reproduce 46 (65%) of 71 datasets. While our results show that a majority of studies are reproducible, they highlight the fact that many studies still are not the carefully curated research that the scientific community and public expects.

Project description:BackgroundJoint Hypermobility Syndrome (JHS) presents with a range of symptoms including widespread joint hypermobility and chronic arthralgia. The study objective was to investigate whether impairments in JHS are due to hypermobility or another factor of JHS by identifying impairments in gait and stair-climbing tasks; an activity that is demanding and so may better show differences between the cohorts.MethodsSixty-eight adults participated; 23 JHS, 23 Generalised Joint Hypermobility (GJH), and 22 Normal Flexibility (NF). Inclusion criteria for JHS participants were a positive classification using the Brighton Criteria, for GJH a Beighton Score ≥ 4, and for NF a Beighton Score < 4 with no hypermobile knees. Participants were recorded with a 10-camera Vicon system whilst they performed gait and stair-climbing. Temporal-spatial, and sagittal plane kinematic and kinetic outcome measures were calculated and input to statistical analyses by statistical parametric mapping (SPM).ResultsDuring the gait activity JHS had significantly greater stride time and significantly lower velocity than NF, and significantly greater stride time, lower velocity, and lower stride length than GJH. SPM analysis showed no significant differences between groups in gait kinematics. There were significant differences between groups for gait moments and powers; people with JHS tended to have lower moments and generate less power at the ankle, and favour power generation at the knee. A similar strategy was present in stair ascent. During stair descent people with JHS showed significantly more hip flexion than people with NF.ConclusionsAs there was only one significant difference between GJH and NF we conclude that impairments cannot be attributed to hypermobility alone, but rather other factor(s) of JHS. The results show that both gait and stair-climbing is impaired in JHS. Stair-climbing results indicate that JHS are using a knee-strategy and avoiding use of the ankle, which may be a factor for clinicians to consider during treatment.

Project description:Lower extremity amputation is often performed in patients where both lower extremities are at risk due to peripheral arterial disease or diabetes, yet the proportion of patients who progress to amputation of their contralateral limb is not well defined. We sought to determine the rate of subsequent amputation on both the ipsilateral and contralateral lower extremities following initial amputation.We conducted a retrospective review of all patients undergoing lower extremity amputation (exclusive of trauma or tumor) at our institution from 1998 to 2010. We used International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision codes to identify patients and procedures as well as comorbidities. Outcomes included the proportion of patients at 1 and 5 years undergoing contralateral and ipsilateral major and minor amputation stratified by initial major vs minor amputation. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of major contralateral amputation.We identified 1715 patients. Mean age was 67.2 years, 63% were male, 77% were diabetic, and 34% underwent an initial major amputation. After major amputation, 5.7% and 11.5% have a contralateral major amputation at 1 and 5 years, respectively. After minor amputation, 3.2% and 8.4% have a contralateral major amputation at 1 and 5 years while 10.5% and 14.2% have an ipsilateral major amputation at 1 and 5 years, respectively. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed end-stage renal disease (hazard ratio [HR], 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-6.5), chronic renal insufficiency (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.5-3.3), atherosclerosis without diabetic neuropathy (HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5-5.7), atherosclerosis with diabetic neuropathy (HR, 9.1; 95% CI, 3.7-22.5), and initial major amputation (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6) were independently predictive of subsequent contralateral major amputation.Rates of contralateral limb amputation are high and predicted by renal disease, atherosclerosis, and atherosclerosis with diabetic neuropathy. Physicians and patients should be alert to the high risk of subsequent amputation in the contralateral leg. All patients, but particularly those at increased risk, should undergo close surveillance and counseling to help prevent subsequent amputations in their contralateral lower extremity.

Project description:BackgroundPatients who undergo lower extremity amputation secondary to the complications of diabetes or peripheral artery disease have poor long-term survival. Providing patients and surgeons with individual-patient, rather than population, survival estimates provides them with important information to make individualized treatment decisions.MethodsPatients with peripheral artery disease and/or diabetes undergoing their first unilateral transmetatarsal, transtibial or transfemoral amputation were identified in the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) database. Stepdown logistic regression was used to develop a 1-year mortality risk prediction model from a list of 33 candidate predictors using data from three of five Department of Veterans Affairs national geographical regions. External geographical validation was performed using data from the remaining two regions. Calibration and discrimination were assessed in the development and validation samples.ResultsThe development sample included 5028 patients and the validation sample 2140. The final mortality prediction model (AMPREDICT-Mortality) included amputation level, age, BMI, race, functional status, congestive heart failure, dialysis, blood urea nitrogen level, and white blood cell and platelet counts. The model fit in the validation sample was good. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the validation sample was 0·76 and Cox calibration regression indicated excellent calibration (slope 0·96, 95 per cent c.i. 0·85 to 1·06; intercept 0·02, 95 per cent c.i. -0·12 to 0·17). Given the external validation characteristics, the development and validation samples were combined, giving a total sample of 7168.ConclusionThe AMPREDICT-Mortality prediction model is a validated parsimonious model that can be used to inform the 1-year mortality risk following non-traumatic lower extremity amputation of patients with peripheral artery disease or diabetes.

Dataset Information

Reproducibility and discriminant validity of two clinically feasible measurement methods to obtain coronal plane gait kinematics in participants with a lower extremity amputation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets