Loss of Mechanical Ankle Function Is Not Compensated by the Distal Foot Joints in Patients with Ankle Osteoarthritis.


Journal

Clinical orthopaedics and related research
ISSN: 1528-1132
Titre abrégé: Clin Orthop Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0075674

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 01 2021
Historique:
received: 26 11 2019
accepted: 10 07 2020
pubmed: 19 9 2020
medline: 29 6 2021
entrez: 18 9 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Patients with isolated ankle osteoarthritis (OA) often demonstrate disturbed ankle biomechanics during walking. Clinicians often believe that this triggers the distal foot joints to compensate these altered ankle biomechanics and that these foot joints are consequently subjected to degenerative joint diseases due to overuse. Do patients with isolated ankle OA differ from those without ankle OA in terms of (1) ankle and foot joint kinematics and (2) ankle and foot joint kinetics as measured using three-dimensional (3-D) gait analysis? (3) Do these patients demonstrate compensatory strategies in their Chopart, Lisfranc, or first metatarsophalangeal joints in terms of increased joint kinematic and kinetic outputs? Between 2015 and 2018, we treated 110 patients with unilateral ankle OA, and invited all of them to participate in the gait analysis laboratory. Of those, 47% (52) of patients did so, and of these, 16 patients met the inclusion criteria for this study, which were (1) diagnosis of unilateral ankle OA; (2) absence of radiographical signs of OA in the contralateral foot or lower limbs; (3) ability to walk at least 100 m without rest; and (4) being older than 18 years of age. A control group (n = 25) was recruited through intranet advertisements at the University Hospitals of Leuven. Participants were included if their age matched the age-range of the patient group and if they had no history of OA in any of the lower limb joints. Patients were slightly older (55.9 ± 11.2 years), with a slightly higher BMI (28 ± 6 kg/m2) than the control group participants (47.2 ± 4.4 years; p = 0.01 and 25 ± 3 kg/m2; p = 0.05). All participants underwent a 3-D gait analysis, during which a multisegment foot model was used to quantify the kinematic parameters (joint angles and ROM) and the kinetic parameters (rotational forces or moments), as well as power generation and absorption in the ankle, Chopart, Lisfranc, and first metatarsophalangeal joints during the stance phase of walking. Peak values were the maximum and minimum values of waveforms and the latter were time-normalized to 100% of the stance phase. Regarding joint kinematics, patients demonstrated a sagittal plane ankle, Chopart, Lisfranc, and first metatarsophalangeal joint ROM of 11.4 ± 3.1°, 9.7 ± 2.7°, 8.6 ± 2.3° and 34.6 ± 8.1°, respectively, compared with 18.0 ± 2.7° (p < 0.001), 13.9 ± 3.2° (p < 0.001), 7.1 ± 2.0° (p = 0.046) and 38.1 ± 6.5° (p = 0.15), respectively, in the control group during the stance phase of walking. With regard to joint kinetics in the patient group, we found a mean decrease of 1.3 W/kg (95% CI confidence interval 1.0 to 1.6) (control group mean: 2.4 ± 0.4 W/kg, patient group mean: 1.1 ± 0.5 W/kg) and 0.8 W/kg (95% CI 0.4 to 1.0) (control group mean: 1.5 ± 0.3 W/kg, patient group mean: 0.7 ± 0.5 W/kg) of ankle (p < 0.001) and Chopart (p < 0.001) joint peak power generation. No changes in kinetic parameters (joint moment or power) were observed in any of the distal foot joints. The findings of this study showed a decrease in ankle kinematics and kinetics of patients with isolated ankle OA during walking, whereas no change in kinematic or kinetic functions were observed in the distal foot joints, demonstrating that these do not compensate for the mechanical dysfunction of the ankle. The current findings suggest that future experimental laboratory studies should look at whether tibiotalar joint fusion or total ankle replacement influence the biomechanical functioning of these distal joints.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Patients with isolated ankle osteoarthritis (OA) often demonstrate disturbed ankle biomechanics during walking. Clinicians often believe that this triggers the distal foot joints to compensate these altered ankle biomechanics and that these foot joints are consequently subjected to degenerative joint diseases due to overuse.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES
Do patients with isolated ankle OA differ from those without ankle OA in terms of (1) ankle and foot joint kinematics and (2) ankle and foot joint kinetics as measured using three-dimensional (3-D) gait analysis? (3) Do these patients demonstrate compensatory strategies in their Chopart, Lisfranc, or first metatarsophalangeal joints in terms of increased joint kinematic and kinetic outputs?
METHODS
Between 2015 and 2018, we treated 110 patients with unilateral ankle OA, and invited all of them to participate in the gait analysis laboratory. Of those, 47% (52) of patients did so, and of these, 16 patients met the inclusion criteria for this study, which were (1) diagnosis of unilateral ankle OA; (2) absence of radiographical signs of OA in the contralateral foot or lower limbs; (3) ability to walk at least 100 m without rest; and (4) being older than 18 years of age. A control group (n = 25) was recruited through intranet advertisements at the University Hospitals of Leuven. Participants were included if their age matched the age-range of the patient group and if they had no history of OA in any of the lower limb joints. Patients were slightly older (55.9 ± 11.2 years), with a slightly higher BMI (28 ± 6 kg/m2) than the control group participants (47.2 ± 4.4 years; p = 0.01 and 25 ± 3 kg/m2; p = 0.05). All participants underwent a 3-D gait analysis, during which a multisegment foot model was used to quantify the kinematic parameters (joint angles and ROM) and the kinetic parameters (rotational forces or moments), as well as power generation and absorption in the ankle, Chopart, Lisfranc, and first metatarsophalangeal joints during the stance phase of walking. Peak values were the maximum and minimum values of waveforms and the latter were time-normalized to 100% of the stance phase.
RESULTS
Regarding joint kinematics, patients demonstrated a sagittal plane ankle, Chopart, Lisfranc, and first metatarsophalangeal joint ROM of 11.4 ± 3.1°, 9.7 ± 2.7°, 8.6 ± 2.3° and 34.6 ± 8.1°, respectively, compared with 18.0 ± 2.7° (p < 0.001), 13.9 ± 3.2° (p < 0.001), 7.1 ± 2.0° (p = 0.046) and 38.1 ± 6.5° (p = 0.15), respectively, in the control group during the stance phase of walking. With regard to joint kinetics in the patient group, we found a mean decrease of 1.3 W/kg (95% CI confidence interval 1.0 to 1.6) (control group mean: 2.4 ± 0.4 W/kg, patient group mean: 1.1 ± 0.5 W/kg) and 0.8 W/kg (95% CI 0.4 to 1.0) (control group mean: 1.5 ± 0.3 W/kg, patient group mean: 0.7 ± 0.5 W/kg) of ankle (p < 0.001) and Chopart (p < 0.001) joint peak power generation. No changes in kinetic parameters (joint moment or power) were observed in any of the distal foot joints.
CONCLUSION
The findings of this study showed a decrease in ankle kinematics and kinetics of patients with isolated ankle OA during walking, whereas no change in kinematic or kinetic functions were observed in the distal foot joints, demonstrating that these do not compensate for the mechanical dysfunction of the ankle.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The current findings suggest that future experimental laboratory studies should look at whether tibiotalar joint fusion or total ankle replacement influence the biomechanical functioning of these distal joints.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32947288
pii: 00003086-202101000-00020
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001443
pmc: PMC7899609
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

105-115

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Each author certifies that he has no commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Références

J Biomech. 2017 Jun 14;58:11-20
pubmed: 28501342
Foot Ankle Surg. 2011 Jun;17(2):52-7
pubmed: 21549972
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2019 Jul;67:160-165
pubmed: 31121429
Foot Ankle Int. 2013 Oct;34(10):1340-8
pubmed: 23669163
Gait Posture. 2019 Feb;68:375-381
pubmed: 30586669
Gait Posture. 2007 Mar;25(3):453-62
pubmed: 16965916
Ann Rheum Dis. 1957 Dec;16(4):494-502
pubmed: 13498604
J Biomech. 2008;41(4):868-76
pubmed: 18078943
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Mar;63(3):405-26
pubmed: 20981808
Gait Posture. 2003 Jun;17(3):214-24
pubmed: 12770635
Gait Posture. 2014 Mar;39(3):926-32
pubmed: 24374063
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Nov;88(11):2366-72
pubmed: 17079392
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Nov 19;96(22):1863-9
pubmed: 25410503
J Biomech. 2017 Aug 16;61:168-175
pubmed: 28784464
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Dec 19;94(24):e181
pubmed: 23318620
Gait Posture. 2008 Jul;28(1):93-100
pubmed: 18096389
Ann Biomed Eng. 2020 Jan;48(1):247-257
pubmed: 31432286
J Biomech. 2002 Apr;35(4):543-8
pubmed: 11934426
J Biomech. 2017 Jun 14;58:212-216
pubmed: 28483145
Swiss Med Wkly. 2012 Jul 19;142:w13583
pubmed: 22815119
Haemophilia. 2020 Jul;26(4):726-734
pubmed: 32364326
Skeletal Radiol. 2012 Dec;41(12):1567-73
pubmed: 22609967
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011 Nov;19(11):1338-42
pubmed: 21875677
Gait Posture. 2014;39(1):339-45
pubmed: 24001868
AMRL TR. 1964 Oct;:1-149
pubmed: 14243640
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007 Oct;22(8):894-904
pubmed: 17604886
J Orthop Sci. 2018 Jul;23(4):658-664
pubmed: 29599074
Orthop Clin North Am. 1994 Jul;25(3):367-77
pubmed: 8028880
Bone Joint J. 2016 Oct;98-B(10):1369-1375
pubmed: 27694591
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2012 Jul;27(6):613-8
pubmed: 22261013

Auteurs

Maarten Eerdekens (M)

M. Eerdekens, KU Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Group, Heverlee, Belgium.
M. Eerdekens, K. Deschamps, UZ Leuven, Clinical Motion Analysis Laboratorium, Pellenberg, Belgium.
K. Deschamps, KU Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Group, Campus Brugge, Belgium.
S. Wuite, G. A. Matricali, UZ Leuven, Department of Orthopedics, Leuven, Belgium.
S. Wuite, G. A. Matricali, KU Leuven, Institute for Orthopaedic Research & Training, Leuven, Belgium.
G. A. Matricali, KU Leuven, Department of development and regeneration, Leuven, Belgium.

Kevin Deschamps (K)

M. Eerdekens, KU Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Group, Heverlee, Belgium.
M. Eerdekens, K. Deschamps, UZ Leuven, Clinical Motion Analysis Laboratorium, Pellenberg, Belgium.
K. Deschamps, KU Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Group, Campus Brugge, Belgium.
S. Wuite, G. A. Matricali, UZ Leuven, Department of Orthopedics, Leuven, Belgium.
S. Wuite, G. A. Matricali, KU Leuven, Institute for Orthopaedic Research & Training, Leuven, Belgium.
G. A. Matricali, KU Leuven, Department of development and regeneration, Leuven, Belgium.

Sander Wuite (S)

M. Eerdekens, KU Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Group, Heverlee, Belgium.
M. Eerdekens, K. Deschamps, UZ Leuven, Clinical Motion Analysis Laboratorium, Pellenberg, Belgium.
K. Deschamps, KU Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Group, Campus Brugge, Belgium.
S. Wuite, G. A. Matricali, UZ Leuven, Department of Orthopedics, Leuven, Belgium.
S. Wuite, G. A. Matricali, KU Leuven, Institute for Orthopaedic Research & Training, Leuven, Belgium.
G. A. Matricali, KU Leuven, Department of development and regeneration, Leuven, Belgium.

Giovanni A Matricali (GA)

M. Eerdekens, KU Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Group, Heverlee, Belgium.
M. Eerdekens, K. Deschamps, UZ Leuven, Clinical Motion Analysis Laboratorium, Pellenberg, Belgium.
K. Deschamps, KU Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Group, Campus Brugge, Belgium.
S. Wuite, G. A. Matricali, UZ Leuven, Department of Orthopedics, Leuven, Belgium.
S. Wuite, G. A. Matricali, KU Leuven, Institute for Orthopaedic Research & Training, Leuven, Belgium.
G. A. Matricali, KU Leuven, Department of development and regeneration, Leuven, Belgium.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH