Examining Gait Patterns after Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Parameterization and Principal Component Analysis

Kevin E. Roy, Victoria L. Chester, Chris A. McGibbon

Andrew and Marjorie McCain Human Performance Laboratory, Faculty of Kinesiology; University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada.

DOI: 10.4236/ojo.2013.32028                

Abstract

The use of parameterization in assessing gait waveforms has been widely accepted, although it is recognized that this approach excludes the majority of information contained in the waveform. Waveform analysis techniques, such as principal component analysis (PCA), have gained popularity in recent years as a more effective approach to extracting important information from human movement waveforms, but are more challenging to interpret. Few studies have compared these two different approaches to determine which yields the most relevant information. This study compared the kinematic patterns during gait of six total knee arthroplasty (TKA) subjects (10 TKA knees), to a group of 10 age-matched asymptomatic control subjects (19 control knees). An eight-camera Vicon M-cam system was used to track movement and compute joint angles. Group differences in parameterization (max and min peaks) values and principal component scores were tested using one-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Using parameterization, the TKA group was characterized by reduced hip extension, increased hip flexion, increased anterior pelvic tilt, increased trunk tilt, and reduced sagittal ankle angles compared to the control group. Waveform analysis, by means of PCA, showed-magnitude shifts in sagittal ankle waveforms between groups, rather than solely reporting differences in peaks. Waveform analysis also indicated a significant shift in the magnitude of the entire waveform for hip angles, pelvic tilt, and trunk tilt, indicating no change in range of motion between groups, but rather a change in the way in which range of motion is achieved at the hip. This study has identified several gait variables that were significantly different between the TKA and control groups. Our results suggest that waveform analysis is effective at identifying magnitude shifts as sources of variability between groups, which would not necessarily be analyzed using conventional parameterization techniques unless one knew a priori where the variability would exist.

Keywords

Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA); Principal Component Analysis (PCA); Parameterization; Gait Analysis

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	R. D. Scott, “Total Knee Arthroplasty,” Saunders, Philadelphia, 2006.
[2]	K. J. Deluzio, U. P. Wyss, B. Zee, P. A. Costigan and C. Serbie, “Principal Component Models of Knee Kinematics and Kinetics: Normal vs. Pathological Gait Patterns,” Human Movement Science, Vol. 16, No. 2-3, 1997, pp. 201217. doi:10.1016/S0167-9457(96)00051-6
[3]	K. J. Deluzio, U. P. Wyss, P. A. Costigan, C. Sorbie and B. Zee, “Gait Assessment in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Patients: Principal Component Modelling of Gait Waveforms and Clinical Status,” Human Movement Science, Vol. 18, No. 5, 1999, pp. 701-711. doi:10.1016/S0167-9457(99)00030-5
[4]	H. Sadeghi, F. Prince, S. Sadeghi and H. Labelle, “Principal Component Analysis of the Power Developed in the Flexion/Extension Muscles of the Hip in Able-Bodied Gait,” Medical Engineering & Physics, Vol. 22, No. 10, 2000, pp. 703-710. doi:10.1016/S1350-4533(01)00010-8
[5]	H. Sadeghi, P. Allard, F. Barbier, S. Sadeghi, S. Hinse and R. Perrault, “Main Functional Roles of Knee Flexors/Extensors in Able-Bodied Gait Using Principal Component Analysis (I),” The Knee, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2002, pp. 47-53. doi:10.1016/S0968-0160(01)00134-X
[6]	H. Sadeghi, F. Prince, K. F. Zabjek, S. Sadeghi and H. Labelle, “Knee Flexors/Extensors in Gait of Elderly and Young Able-Bodied Men (II),” The Knee, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2002, pp. 55-63. doi:10.1016/S0968-0160(01)00137-5
[7]	T. P. Andriacchi, J. O. Galante and R. W. Fermier, “The Influence of Total Knee-Replacement Design on Walking and Stair Climbing,” Journal of Bone and Joint SurgeryAmerican, Vol. 64, No. 9, 1992, pp. 1328-1335.
[8]	L. D. Dorr, J. L. Ochsner, J. Gronley and J. Perry, “Functional Comparison of Posterior Cruciate-Retained versus Cruciate-Sacrificed Total Knee Arthroplasty,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol. 236, No. 1, 1988, pp. 36-43.
[9]	Y. Ishii, K. Terajima, Y. Koga, H.E. Takahashi, J. E. Bechtold and R. B. Gustilo, “Gait Analysis after Total Knee Arthroplasty: Comparison of Posterior Cruciate Retention and Substitution,” Journal of Orthopaedic Science, Vol. 3, No. 6, 1998, pp. 310-317. doi:10.1007/s007760050058
[10]	A. Kramers-de Quervain, E. Stussi, R. Muller, T. Drobny, U. Munzinger and N. Gschwend, “Quantitative Gait Analysis after Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty with two DifFerent systems within Each Subject,” The Journal of Arthroplasty, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1997, pp. 168-179. doi:10.1016/S0883-5403(97)90063-2
[11]	A. A. Bolanos, W. A. Colizza, P. D. McCann, R. S. Gotlin, M. E. Wootten and B. A. Kahn, “A Comparison of Isokinetic Strength Testing and Gait Analysis in Patients with Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Substituting Knee Arthro-plasties,” The Journal of Arthroplasty, Vol. 13, No. 8, 1998, pp. 906-915. doi:10.1016/S0883-5403(98)90198-X
[12]	T. Saari, R. Tranberg, R. Zugner, J. Uvehammer and J. Karrholm, “Changed Gait Pattern in Patients with Total Knee Arthroplasty But Minimal Influence of Tibial Insert Design,” Acta Orthopaedica, Vol. 76, No. 2, 2005, pp. 253260. doi:10.1080/00016470510030661
[13]	A. T. Berman, S. J. Bosacco and C. Israelite, “Evaluation of Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Isokinetic Testing,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol. 271, 1991, pp. 106-113.
[14]	S. A. Wilson, P. D. McCann, R. S. Gotlin, H. K. Ramakrishnan, M. E. Wootten and J. N. Insall, “Comprehensive Gait Analysis in Posterior-Stabilized Knee Arthroplasty,” The Journal of Arthroplasty, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1996, pp. 359367. doi:10.1016/S0883-5403(96)80023-4
[15]	H. Sadeghi, “Local or Global Asymmetry in Gait of People without Impairments,” Gait and Posture, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2003, pp. 197-204. doi:10.1016/S0966-6362(02)00089-9
[16]	R. B. Davis, S. Ounpuu, D. Tyburski and J. R. Gage, “A Gait Analysis Data Collection and Reduction Technique,” Human Movement Science, Vol. 10, No. 5, 1991, pp. 575587. doi:10.1016/0167-9457(91)90046-Z
[17]	T. Wrigley, W. J. Albert, K. J. Deluzio, J. M. Stevenson and J. M. “Principal Component Analysis If Lifting Waveforms,” Clinical Biomechanics, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2006, pp. 567-578. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.01.004
[18]	J. E. Jackson, “A User’s Guide to Principal Components,” John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Hoboken, 1991. doi:10.1002/0471725331
[19]	J. M. Winter and S. L-Y. Woo, “Multiple Muscle Systems: Biomechanics and Movement Arganization,” Spinger-Verlag, New York, 1990.
[20]	S. Simon, H. Trieshmann, R. Burdett, F. Ewald and C. Sledge, “Quantitative Gait Analysis after Total Knee Arthroplasty for Monarticular Degenerative Arthritis,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol. 65, No. 5, 1983, pp. 605-613.
[21]	T. P. Andriacchi, “Dynamics of Pathological Motion: Applied to the Anterior Cruciate Deficient Knee,” Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1990, pp. 99-105. doi:10.1016/0021-9290(90)90044-4
[22]	J. L. Astephen, K. J. Deluzio, G. E. Caldwell, M. J. Dunbar, C. L. Hubley-Kozey, “Gait and neuromuscular pattern changes are associated with differences in knee osteoarthritis severity levels” Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 41, No, 4, 2007, pp. 868-876.