Biomechanical evaluation and comparison of clinically relevant versus non-relevant leg length inequalities.
Gait
Leg length discrepancy
Leg length inequalities
Rasterstereography
Surface topography
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Feb 2022
23 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
20
07
2021
accepted:
11
02
2022
entrez:
24
2
2022
pubmed:
25
2
2022
medline:
26
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Leg length inequalities are a frequent condition in every population. It is common clinical practice to consider LLIs of 2 cm and more as relevant and to treat those. However, the amount of LLIs that need treatment is not clearly defined in literature and the effect of real LLIs on the musculoskeletal system above and below 2 cm have not been studied biomechanically before. By using surface topography, we evaluated 32 patients (10 females, 22 male) with real LLIs of ≥ 2 cm (mean: 2.72 cm; n = 10) and compared their pelvic position and spinal posture to patients with LLIs < 2 cm (mean: 1.24 cm; n = 22) while standing and walking. All patients were measured with a surface topography system during standing and while walking on a treadmill. To compare patient groups, we used Student t-tests for independent samples. Pelvic obliquity was significantly higher in patients with LLI ≥ 2 cm during the standing trial (p = 0.045) and during the midstance phase of the longer leg (p = 0.023) while walking. Further measurements did not reveal any significant differences (p = 0.06-0.706). The results of our study suggest that relevant LLIs of ≥ 2 cm mostly affect pelvic obliquity and do not lead to significant alterations in the spinal posture during a standing trial. Additionally, we demonstrated that LLIs are better compensated when walking, showing almost no significant differences in pelvic and spinal posture between patients with LLIs smaller and greater than 2 cm. This study shows that LLIs ≥ 2 cm can still be compensated; however, we do not know if the compensation mechanisms may lead to long-term clinical pathologies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Leg length inequalities are a frequent condition in every population. It is common clinical practice to consider LLIs of 2 cm and more as relevant and to treat those. However, the amount of LLIs that need treatment is not clearly defined in literature and the effect of real LLIs on the musculoskeletal system above and below 2 cm have not been studied biomechanically before.
METHODS
METHODS
By using surface topography, we evaluated 32 patients (10 females, 22 male) with real LLIs of ≥ 2 cm (mean: 2.72 cm; n = 10) and compared their pelvic position and spinal posture to patients with LLIs < 2 cm (mean: 1.24 cm; n = 22) while standing and walking. All patients were measured with a surface topography system during standing and while walking on a treadmill. To compare patient groups, we used Student t-tests for independent samples.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Pelvic obliquity was significantly higher in patients with LLI ≥ 2 cm during the standing trial (p = 0.045) and during the midstance phase of the longer leg (p = 0.023) while walking. Further measurements did not reveal any significant differences (p = 0.06-0.706).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The results of our study suggest that relevant LLIs of ≥ 2 cm mostly affect pelvic obliquity and do not lead to significant alterations in the spinal posture during a standing trial. Additionally, we demonstrated that LLIs are better compensated when walking, showing almost no significant differences in pelvic and spinal posture between patients with LLIs smaller and greater than 2 cm. This study shows that LLIs ≥ 2 cm can still be compensated; however, we do not know if the compensation mechanisms may lead to long-term clinical pathologies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35197042
doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05113-2
pii: 10.1186/s12891-022-05113-2
pmc: PMC8867730
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
174Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2004 Feb;14(1):49-56
pubmed: 14723788
Eur Spine J. 2020 Sep;29(9):2392-2401
pubmed: 32277336
Gait Posture. 2017 Sep;57:115-123
pubmed: 28600975
J Child Orthop. 2012 Jun;6(2):89-104
pubmed: 23730339
Eur Spine J. 2012 Apr;21(4):691-7
pubmed: 21769443
Gait Posture. 2002 Apr;15(2):195-206
pubmed: 11869914
J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2016 Nov 11;:
pubmed: 27858683
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Sep 8;15(1):389
pubmed: 32900390
J Pediatr Orthop. 2019 Jul;39(Issue 6, Supplement 1 Suppl 1):S10-S13
pubmed: 31169640
Eur Spine J. 2013 Jun;22(6):1354-61
pubmed: 23479027
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Mar 1;18(3):368-73
pubmed: 8475440
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983 Sep;8(6):643-51
pubmed: 6228021
Chiropr Osteopat. 2005 Jul 20;13:11
pubmed: 16026625
Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2019 May 26;33:46
pubmed: 31456970
Physiother Theory Pract. 2013 Aug;29(6):487-92
pubmed: 23289961
J Pediatr Orthop. 2015 Apr-May;35(3):280-4
pubmed: 25075889
Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:745480
pubmed: 23819119
Gait Posture. 2019 Jan;67:71-76
pubmed: 30292100
Singapore Med J. 2011 Sep;52(9):681-4
pubmed: 21947147
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;176:104-7
pubmed: 22744469
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1981;3(1):11-6
pubmed: 18810144
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2020 Jun 12;117(24):405-411
pubmed: 32865491
Gait Posture. 2000 Oct;12(2):156-61
pubmed: 10998613
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Sep;32(9):2725-2729.e1
pubmed: 28483212
Orthopedics. 1978 Jul-Aug;1(4):307-10
pubmed: 733195
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Nov;79(11):1690-8
pubmed: 9384429
Gait Posture. 2019 Mar;69:202-208
pubmed: 30772624
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018 Oct;70(10):1572-1576
pubmed: 29700988
Spine Deform. 2016 Mar;4(2):98-103
pubmed: 27927552
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1984;5(5):230-9
pubmed: 18806409
Phys Ther. 1990 Mar;70(3):150-7
pubmed: 2304973
Acta Orthop. 2017 Oct;88(5):512-515
pubmed: 28665226
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 23;8(7):e70581
pubmed: 23894674
Comput Biol Med. 2011 Jun;41(6):308-12
pubmed: 21489425
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Nov 1;28(21):2472-6
pubmed: 14595166