Dataset Information

Kinematic Gait Analysis After Primary Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review: Gait After Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Total hip replacement (THR) is a surgical procedure indicated for patients affected by severe hip osteoarthritis. Although this technique has proved to be effective in relieving pain and restoring function, gait limitations may persist following this procedure. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate gait kinematics after THR and compare the results with those of the pre-operative state and with healthy control individuals. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL and Scopus databases were searched until December 2019. Methodological quality and internal validity score of each study were assessed using the PEDro and the Newcastle-Ottawa scales. In all, ten studies met our inclusion criteria. Following THR, statistically significant improvements were seen in dynamic hip and knee range of motion of both the affected and the contralateral limb, single-limb support time symmetry, step length, stride length, walking speed and gait pattern. However, deficits were observed in all the previous parameters, as well as in hip adduction angle in comparison with healthy subjects. In conclusion, gait patterns improve after THR in comparison with the pre-operative state, although there are deficits relative to healthy individuals.

SUBMITTER: Mendiolagoitia L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7573021 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Kinematic Gait Analysis After Primary Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review: Gait After Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review.

Mendiolagoitia Luis L Rodríguez Miguel Ángel MÁ Crespo Irene I Del Valle Miguel M Olmedillas Hugo H

Indian journal of orthopaedics 20200416 6

Total hip replacement (THR) is a surgical procedure indicated for patients affected by severe hip osteoarthritis. Although this technique has proved to be effective in relieving pain and restoring function, gait limitations may persist following this procedure. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate gait kinematics after THR and compare the results with those of the pre-operative state and with healthy control individuals. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL and Scop ...[more]

PMID: 33133399

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To compare the survival of different implant combinations for primary total hip replacement (THR). Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the EU Clinical Trials Register.Review methods Published randomised controlled trials comparing different implant combinations. Implant combinations were defined by bearing surface materials (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic, or metal-on-metal), head size (large ≥36 mm or small <36 mm), and fixation technique (cemented, uncemented, hybrid, or reverse hybrid). Our reference implant combination was metal-on-polyethylene (not highly cross linked), small head, and cemented. The primary outcome was revision surgery at 0-2 years and 2-10 years after primary THR. The secondary outcome was the Harris hip score reported by clinicians.Results 77 studies were included in the systematic review, and 15 studies (3177 hips) in the network meta-analysis for revision. There was no evidence that the risk of revision surgery was reduced by other implant combinations compared with the reference implant combination. Although estimates are imprecise, metal-on-metal, small head, cemented implants (hazard ratio 4.4, 95% credible interval 1.6 to 16.6) and resurfacing (12.1, 2.1 to 120.3) increase the risk of revision at 0-2 years after primary THR compared with the reference implant combination. Similar results were observed for the 2-10 years period. 31 studies (2888 patients) were included in the analysis of Harris hip score. No implant combination had a better score than the reference implant combination.Conclusions Newer implant combinations were not found to be better than the reference implant combination (metal-on-polyethylene (not highly cross linked), small head, cemented) in terms of risk of revision surgery or Harris hip score. Metal-on-metal, small head, cemented implants and resurfacing increased the risk of revision surgery compared with the reference implant combination. The results were consistent with observational evidence and were replicated in sensitivity analysis but were limited by poor reporting across studies.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42015019435.

Project description:BackgroundEvolvements in the design, fixation methods, size, and bearing surface of implants for total hip replacement (THR) have led to a variety of options for healthcare professionals to consider. The need to determine the most optimal combinations of THR implant is warranted. This systematic review evaluated the clinical effectiveness of different types of THR used for the treatment of end stage arthritis of the hip.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was undertaken in major health databases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews published from 2008 onwards comparing different types of primary THR in patients with end stage arthritis of the hip were included.ResultsFourteen RCTs and five systematic reviews were included. Patients experienced significant post-THR improvements in Harris Hip scores, but this did not differ between impact types. There was a reduced risk of implant dislocation after receiving a larger femoral head size (36 mm vs. 28 mm; RR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.78) or cemented cup (vs. cementless cup; pooled odds ratio: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.89). Recipients of cross-linked vs. conventional polyethylene cup liners experienced reduced femoral head penetration and revision. There was no impact of femoral stem fixation and cup shell design on implant survival rates. Evidence on mortality and complications (aseptic loosening, femoral fracture) was inconclusive.ConclusionsThe majority of evidence was inconclusive due to poor reporting, missing data, or uncertainty in treatment estimates. The findings warrant cautious interpretation given the risk of bias (blinding, attrition), methodological limitations (small sample size, low event counts, short follow-up), and poor reporting. Long-term pragmatic RCTs are needed to allow for more definitive conclusions. Authors are encouraged to specify the minimal clinically important difference and power calculation for their primary outcome(s) as well CONSORT, PRISMA and STROBE guidelines to ensure better reporting and more reliable production and assessment of evidence.

Project description:BackgroundComparative studies of total hip arthroplasty using the direct anterior approach (DAA) compared with the anterolateral approach (ALA) by gait analysis compared the results of the two groups, the damage to the abductor muscle, with objective and detailed kinematic as well as kinetic data of actual gait. The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the differences in gait such as time-dependent parameters, kinetics, and kinematics after THA using the DAA compared with ALA.MethodsPubMed Central, OVID Medline, Cochrane Collaboration Library, Web of Science, EMBASE and AHRQ carried out a comprehensive search for all relevant randomized controlled trials and comparative studies, up to December 2018. Based on the following criteria, studies were selected: 1) study design: randomized controlled trials or non-randomized comparative studies; 2) study population: patients with primary osteoarthritis or avascular necrosis; 3) intervention: total hip arthroplasty by DAA or ALA; 4) Kinetic and kinematic data after gait analysis in the plains during postoperative follow-up.ResultsOf the 148 studies, 7 randomized controlled trials and 5 comparative studies were finally included in this systematic review. The peak hip flexion within 3 months after surgery was described in two studies and was significantly higher in the DAA group. (OR = 1.90; 95% CI [1.67,2.13]; P < 0.01, Z = 16.18). The gait speed within 3 months after surgery was reported in 3 studies and was significantly higher in the DAA group than in the ALA group. (SMD = 0.17; 95% CI [0.12,0.22]; P < 0.01, Z = 6.62) There was no difference between the two groups in stride length, step length, and hip range of motion in sagittal plane.ConclusionsIn this meta-analysis, gait speed and peak hip flexion within 3 months after surgery were significantly higher in the DAA group than in the ALA group. Despite a few significant differences between two approaches, determining whether the reported differences in terms of postoperative gait values are clinically meaningful remains a substantial challenge.

Dataset Information

Kinematic Gait Analysis After Primary Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review: Gait After Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Kinematic Gait Analysis After Primary Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review: Gait After Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets