## 3 Results  
A total of 34 patients were included in the study and evenly allocated to intervention and control groups (\(n\) = 17 each). Table 1 presents the main demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline. Results from the study were objectively quantified by digitally recording the load expressed in Kg maintained by patients during ambulation, using measurements at the beginning, middle, and end of treatment (Figure 3). The experimental treatment's effectiveness was calculated by considering the difference between the load granted during the orthopaedic visit and the load used by the patients (\(\Delta\) weight loaded), comparing the average values and standard deviations between the experimental and control groups. In the experimental group, a \(\Delta\) load was observed at the beginning of treatment without using the load incentiviser, equal to 12.9 kg \(\pm\) 10.9. At the beginning of therapy utilising the incentiviser, the \(\Delta\) weight loaded decreased to 5.6 kg \(\pm\) 8.5. In the middle of treatment, following the integration of the load incentiviser in the treatment plan, the \(\Delta\) weight loaded was 4.4 kg \(\pm\) 6.3, and at the end of treatment, it was 2.0 kg \(\pm\) 3.0. The change in load perception was confirmed by the \(T\)-test between T0 and T1, with a \(p\)-value = 0.021251 and therefore <0.05, confirming the alternative hypothesis of a difference between the beginning and end of treatment at 95% (Table 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Variable** & **Intervention Group** & **Control Group** \\ \hline Number of participants & 17 & 17 \\ Age (years, mean \(\pm\) SD) & 71.4 \(\pm\) 8.1 & 72.1 \(\pm\) 7.6 \\ Sex (M/F) & 9/8 & 8/9 \\ BMI (mean \(\pm\) SD) & 26.7 \(\pm\) 3.4 & 27.1 \(\pm\) 3.8 \\  & Eight Femoral fractures/six Total hip & Three Femoral fractures/three Total hip arthroplasties/two Hip hemiarthroplasties/one Pulvic fracture/one Total knee & \\  & fracture & arthroplasty/one Ankle fracture \\ Baseline PWB error (kg, mean \(\pm\) SD) & 12.9 \(\pm\) 10.9 & 16.3 \(\pm\) 14.7 \\ Baseline NRS (mean \(\pm\) SD) & 4.2 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 4.2 \(\pm\) 1.7 \\ Baseline 6 MWT (m, mean \(\pm\) SD) & 35.4 \(\pm\) 66.1 & 45.9 \(\pm\) 74.4 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Abbreviations: SD, Standard Deviation; BMI, Body Mass Index; PWB, Partial Weight Bearing; NRS, Numeric Rating Scale; 6 MWT, 6-Minute Walking Test. Other parameters were also analysed, such as the standard deviations of individual subjects at different measurement times (columns), indicating the intra-step variability of the subject (how much the patient varies the load in different steps within the same measurement). Between T0 and T1, the mean value of the standard deviations goes from 2.5 kg \(\pm\) 1.0 at T0, to 3.4 kg \(\pm\) 1.6 at T0 with incentivator, to 2.0 kg \(\pm\) 1.2 at T1. In the control group, the \(\Delta\) weight loaded at the beginning of the treatment was 16.3 kg \(\pm\) 14.7, while at \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Weight** & \(\Delta\)**Loaded** & **Loaded** & **\(\Delta\)Loaded** & **NRS T0** & **NRS T1** & **6 MWT T0** & **6 MWT T1** \\  & **(Kg)** & **Weight T0** & **Weight T0** & **Weight T1** & **NRS T0** & **NRS T1** & **6 MWT T0** & **6 MWT T1** \\ \hline
**Mean** & 77.3 & 12.91 & 41.8 & 2.02 & 4.15 & 1.55 & 35.44 & 206.19 \\
**Median** & 78.5 & 11.97 & 40.72 & 0.82 & 4 & 1 & 0 & 220.8 \\
**St. Dev.** & 16.69 & 10.93 & 9.43 & 2.98 & 2.48 & 1.43 & 66.08 & 90.16 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Summary tables of data obtained: cases treated. Abbreviations: NRS, Numeric Rating Scale; 6 MWT, 6-Minute Walking Test; SD, Standard Deviation; T0, baseline (postoperative day 1); T1, discharge (postoperative day 14 \(\pm\) 2). Figure 3: CONSORT flow diagram of participant progress through the study. The mean length of stay was 13.9 \(\pm\) 1.7 days for the intervention group and 14.1 \(\pm\) 1.6 days for controls.