## 3 Results  
The demographic characteristics, physical and functional measurements, and pain reports are summarized in Table 1. There were no between-group differences in all of the aforementioned parameters. In the TKR group, 11 (78%) subjects reported a decrease of more than 20 mm in the VAS score of the OA limb one year following the TKR, while in the NTKR group, only three (11%) reported a decrease of more than 20 mm in the VAS score of the OA limb. In the OXFORD score, 10 (71%) TKR subjects from the group reported a decrease of more than seven points one year following the TKR, while in the NTKR group, only two (10%) reported a decrease of more than seven points. Eight (57%) TKR subjects decreased their TUG score by more than 1.1 s one year following the TKR, while in the NTKR group, eight (47%) decreased the TUG score by more than 1.1 s. Finally, eight (47%) NTKR subjects and six (42%) TKR subjects had ABC scores lower than 67%. The percentage of change of the spatiotemporal and joint kinematics data of the unperturbed gait are summarized in Table 2. The percentage of change of the swing duration of the CL limb was lower in the NTKR group compared to the TKR group (\(p=0.038\)). There were no other between-group differences in the spatial-temporal gait \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **NTKR (_n = 17_)** & **TKR (_n = 14_)** & \(p\) & **t** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Functional measurements} & Sex & 7 male; 10 female & 4 male; 10 female & 0.473 & \(-\)0.718 \\  & Age (years) & 68.3 (7.3) & 70.8 (6.4) & 0.586 & \(-\)0.997 \\  & BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 29.1 (4.7) & 30.8 (4.4) & 0.687 & \(-\)0.994 \\  & Injured knee & 6 left; 11 right & 8 left; 6 right & 0.231 & \(-\)1.197 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Functional measurements} & OXFORD (0–48) & \(-\)6.9 (29.1) & \(-\)31.2 (46.5) & 0.164 & 1.774 \\  & ABC (0–100%) & \(-\)4.9 (38.4) & 1.7 (38.3) & 0.845 & \(-\)0.471 \\  & TUG (s) & \(-\)11.6 (17.6) & \(-\)12.6 (27.8) & 0.078 & 0.116 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{VAS of pain} & Knee OA limb & 0.4 (2.6) & \(-\)3.8 (3.3) & 0.281 & 3.984 \\  & Knee CL limb & 1.4 (3.7) & 1.0 (4.1) & 0.986 & 0.276 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Passive Range of Motion (\({}^{\circ}\))} & Hip flexion OA limb * & 0.0 (0.0–0.0) & 0.0 (0.0–0.2) & 0.404 & \(-\)0.843 \\  & Hip flexion CL limb * & 0.0 (0.0–0.0) & 0.0 (0.0–0.0) & 0.598 & \(-\)0.527 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Hip extension injured limb * & 0.0 (0.0–0.0) & 0.0 (0.0–0.0) & 0.420 & \(-\)0.807 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Hip extension CL limb * & 0.0 (0.0–0.0) & 0.0 (0.0–0.0) & 0.485 & \(-\)0.699 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Knee flexion OA limb & 0.0 (13.0) & 4.6 (16.3) & 0.296 & \(-\)0.882 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Knee flexion CL limb * & 0.0 (\(-\)10.0–0.0) & 0.0 (\(-\)5.0–5.0) & 0.290 & \(-\)1.057 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Knee extension OA limb * & \(-\)2.5 (0.0–2.5) & 0.0 (0.0–1.3) & 0.414 & \(-\)0.817 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Knee extension CL limb * & 0.0 (0.0–0.0) & 0.0 (0.0–0.0) & 0.163 & \(-\)1.395 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* As the data were not normally distributed, values are shown as the median and interquartile percentage, and the Mann–Whitney test was used (\(Z\) value is presented instead of). Abbreviations: BMI = Body Mass Index: 25 \(\leq\) overweight \(<\) 30, 30 \(\leq\) obese \(<\) 35, 35 \(\leq\) obesity; VAS = Visual Analogue Scale; TUG = timed up and go; ABC = Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale; CL = contralateral; OA = osteoarthritis; CL = contralateral; TKR = total knee replacement; and NTKR = no TKR.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Demographic characteristics, difference in physical and functional measurements, and pain reports of the two groups calculated by: \(X_{follow\ up}-X_{Baseline}\). Numeric values are presented as the median and interquartile percentage. parameters. However, after one year, ten (71%) TKR subjects and seven (41%) NTKR subjects increased their gait velocity by more than 0.1 m/sec, which is the MCID [40]. Three between-group differences were found for joint kinematics.