# Gait Improvement in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis after Proximal Fibular Osteotomy

Authors: Xiaotong Li; Yuqing Cao; Zhenguo Cao; Pengfei Zheng; Andrew Merryweather; Hui Wang; Ding Chen; Hang Xu
Journal: BioMed Research International
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Proximal fibula osteotomy (PFO) is a relatively new surgery to treat medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (KOA), which can improve varum deformity and relieve knee joint pain. However, the gait alterations in KOA patients after PFO are still poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the gait patterns change in patients of medial compartment KOA after PFO. Gait data were collected for 9 females with unilateral medial compartment KOA before and at 6 months after PFO and also for 9 healthy age-matched females. Pairedt-test was used to determine the effect of PFO within the KOA group, and independent t-test were performed to compare between KOA and control groups for spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic variables. The results showed that patients with KOA had significantly increased knee peak flexion angle, knee sagittal range of motion, and peak external hip adduction moment but decreased knee frontal range of motion in the affected limb after PFO. The gait symmetry was improved postoperatively confirmed by single support and swing phases, knee peak flexion angle and sagittal range of motion, peak external hip and knee adduction moments, and peak anterior and peak posterior ground reaction forces. These findings provided evidence of a biomechanical benefit and gait improvement following PFO to treat medial compartment KOA.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the most common degenerative diseases, which causes pain and disability and seriously deteriorates the quality of life. KOA mostly occurs in adults over 50 years old with an increase incidence with age [1]. Women are more severely impacted by KOA than men, including more advanced stages, more pain and disability, and even higher prevalence [2]. Since the medial compartment of the knee joint bears 60% to 80% of the load during gait, medial compartment KOA is commonly observed by knee varus deformities [3].There are many surgery options for medial compartment KOA when conservative measures cannot relieve pain or the knee joint has obvious deformities, such as high tibial osteotomy and total knee arthroplasty [4]. To date, total knee arthroplasty remains the most common and effective treatment choice for KOA patients, but the cost of surgery is high, and the procedure is invasive [5]. Although high tibial osteotomy can preserve the knee joint and is less invasive, a strict weight-bearing restriction in the early postoperative period is required, and the recovery time after surgery is relatively long [6].In recent years, proximal fibula osteotomy (PFO) has become a new choice for the management of medial compartment KOA, which has advantages of a smaller surgical incision, local anesthetic operation, shorter hospital stays, and lower treatment cost compared to high tibial osteotomy and total and knee arthroplasty [7]. However, the biomechanical mechanism of how PFO treats medial compartment KOA is still largely unknown. Previous research concludes that the support of the fibula on the lateral tibial plateau leads to nonuniform settlement of medial and lateral tibial plateaus, which is the medial shift mechanical axis of the knee joint [3, 8]. According to this theory, PFO could disrupt the lateral strut effect of the fibula and redistribute the load and pressure between tibial plateaus, thus relieving knee pain [9].Most previous studies of PFO to treat KOA focus on the clinical outcomes and radiographic analysis rather than biomechanics [8–10]. PFO was reported to significantly improve patients’ knee function as well as pain evidenced by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), American Knee Society Score (KSS), and hospital for special surgery score [10–13]. The radiographic results show that the hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle and femorotibial angle are corrected, and the medial space of the knee joint increased on average after PFO [3, 10, 12, 14].There is a paucity of research on the effect of gait alteration after PFO. Biswas et al. collected gait data from 22 KOA patients preoperatively and postoperatively for PFO, respectively. They reported an increased cadence and reduced step width and peak knee inversion angle after PFO, which relieved the knee pain and improved the biomechanical alignment [15]. However, this study distinguished the lower limb by right and left side, not by affected and unaffected limb. Huang et al. analyzed gait parameters from KOA patients with PFO preoperatively, 1 day, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively, and also healthy adults [12]. They found that gait speed and the range of knee flexion overall increased, but the knee adduction moment (KAM) decreased after PFO at 6 months compared to 1 day postoperatively [12]. However, pain experienced immediately postoperatively might have interfered with the gait result 1 day following surgery [15], and the controls were much younger than the patients, resulting in unclear comparisons between groups.To our knowledge, the change of gait pattern after PFO to treat medial compartment KOA is still largely unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the gait alterations in patients of medial compartment KOA after PFO.


## 2. Methods

### 2.1. Participants

Nine females with unilateral medial compartment KOA were recruited from local hospital (Table1). The sample size was determined using the software G∗Power (version 3.1.9) with the input as follows: paired t-test, effect size of 0.8, statistical power of 70%, and significance level of 0.05. Inclusion criteria included (1) medial compartment KOA based on Kellgren-Lawrence (grade 2 or 3); (2) age between 60 and 70 years; (3) the presence of knee deformity with narrowing of the medial compartment; and (4) ambulatory without using an assistive device. Exclusion criteria included (1) any fracture, infection, and surgical history in lower limb joints and (2) other neurologic diseases that affects gait. All the participants with medial compartment KOA underwent PFO by the same orthopedic surgeon, and the surgery was performed as per standard protocol [16]. Nine healthy females were also included as the control group, which met the following criteria: (1) age between 60 and 70 years and (2) free from injuries or disorders which would affect their gait. Institutional review board approval was obtained from Xuzhou Medical University (IRB_2019651972), and all participants provided written informed consent.Table 1
Mean (SD) participants’ demographics.
Age (years)Height (m)Weight (kg)BMI (kg/m2)Affected limb (L/R)KOA grade (2/3)KOA group65.2 (3.4)1.62 (0.09)68.4 (9.4)25.8 (2.1)4/55/4Control group65.7 (2.1)1.62 (0.06)68.4 (10.1)26.1 (2.7)N/AN/A


### 2.2. Experimental Procedures

Prior to the gait analysis, the HKA angle was measured for radiographic evaluation, which was defined as the angle between the mechanical axes of the femur and the tibia in the frontal plane. KSS and WOMAC were recorded for all participants before and after PFO. Gait data were collected twice for each participant in Biomechanics and Motion Analysis Laboratory of Xuzhou Medical University, one was before PFO and the other was 6 months after surgery. A 10-camera motion capture system (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK) and two force plates (AMTI, Watertown, MA) were used to collect kinematic and ground reaction force (GRF) data. Subjects wore tight fitting clothing, and 28 reflective markers were attached to the body based on an improved plug-in gait lower body marker set [17]. Then, a static trial was collected to build the model and participants barefoot walked along a 10-meter walkway several times to familiarize the laboratory environment. Finally, five successful barefoot gait trials were collected for each subject at a self-selected speed. A successful trial was defined as one which involved a heel strike by a foot as it was isolated on the specific force plate. The marker trajectory and GRF data were recorded at 100 Hz and 1000 Hz and postprocessed with a fourth-order low-pass filter at 6 Hz and 20 Hz, respectively.


### 2.3. Data Analysis

The variables of interest were spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic parameters. The spatiotemporal variables included gait speed, step and stride lengths, step time, step width, step cadence, swing phase, and single-support and double-support phases. Kinematic variables included the peak and range of motion (RoM) of the hip, knee, and ankle joints in three body planes. Kinetic variables included the peak moments of the hip, knee, and ankle joints in the frontal plane and also peak GRFs in vertical, anteroposterior, and mediolateral directions.The data were processed using Vicon Nexus 2.10 (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK). The dynamic plug-in-gait program was run firstly to detect the gait events (heel strike and toe off) which were defined via force plate with a 20 N threshold. Then the joint angles and moments were calculated. Finally, gait data were exported to the Vicon Polygon 4.4 (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK) to obtain the spatiotemporal variables. The kinematic and kinetic variables were normalized to 101 points for gait cycle. Additionally, joint moment and GRF were normalized to body mass for each subject. For the patients with medial compartment KOA, all the variables were averaged across five trials for each subject and then averaged across nine participants for both affected and unaffected limbs. For the controls, the variables were averaged across two limbs for five within-subject trials and then across subjects to obtain group-averaged data.


### 2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistics were performed using SPSS 20.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics were calculated for gait variables, and normality of data was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Pairedt-test was used to assess the gait symmetry between affected and unaffected limbs for patient group and also gait alterations before and after PFO. Independent t-test was used to compare between KOA patients and controls. A significance level of 0.05 was used for comparisons.


## 2.1. Participants

Nine females with unilateral medial compartment KOA were recruited from local hospital (Table1). The sample size was determined using the software G∗Power (version 3.1.9) with the input as follows: paired t-test, effect size of 0.8, statistical power of 70%, and significance level of 0.05. Inclusion criteria included (1) medial compartment KOA based on Kellgren-Lawrence (grade 2 or 3); (2) age between 60 and 70 years; (3) the presence of knee deformity with narrowing of the medial compartment; and (4) ambulatory without using an assistive device. Exclusion criteria included (1) any fracture, infection, and surgical history in lower limb joints and (2) other neurologic diseases that affects gait. All the participants with medial compartment KOA underwent PFO by the same orthopedic surgeon, and the surgery was performed as per standard protocol [16]. Nine healthy females were also included as the control group, which met the following criteria: (1) age between 60 and 70 years and (2) free from injuries or disorders which would affect their gait. Institutional review board approval was obtained from Xuzhou Medical University (IRB_2019651972), and all participants provided written informed consent.Table 1
Mean (SD) participants’ demographics.
Age (years)Height (m)Weight (kg)BMI (kg/m2)Affected limb (L/R)KOA grade (2/3)KOA group65.2 (3.4)1.62 (0.09)68.4 (9.4)25.8 (2.1)4/55/4Control group65.7 (2.1)1.62 (0.06)68.4 (10.1)26.1 (2.7)N/AN/A


## 2.2. Experimental Procedures

Prior to the gait analysis, the HKA angle was measured for radiographic evaluation, which was defined as the angle between the mechanical axes of the femur and the tibia in the frontal plane. KSS and WOMAC were recorded for all participants before and after PFO. Gait data were collected twice for each participant in Biomechanics and Motion Analysis Laboratory of Xuzhou Medical University, one was before PFO and the other was 6 months after surgery. A 10-camera motion capture system (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK) and two force plates (AMTI, Watertown, MA) were used to collect kinematic and ground reaction force (GRF) data. Subjects wore tight fitting clothing, and 28 reflective markers were attached to the body based on an improved plug-in gait lower body marker set [17]. Then, a static trial was collected to build the model and participants barefoot walked along a 10-meter walkway several times to familiarize the laboratory environment. Finally, five successful barefoot gait trials were collected for each subject at a self-selected speed. A successful trial was defined as one which involved a heel strike by a foot as it was isolated on the specific force plate. The marker trajectory and GRF data were recorded at 100 Hz and 1000 Hz and postprocessed with a fourth-order low-pass filter at 6 Hz and 20 Hz, respectively.


## 2.3. Data Analysis

The variables of interest were spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic parameters. The spatiotemporal variables included gait speed, step and stride lengths, step time, step width, step cadence, swing phase, and single-support and double-support phases. Kinematic variables included the peak and range of motion (RoM) of the hip, knee, and ankle joints in three body planes. Kinetic variables included the peak moments of the hip, knee, and ankle joints in the frontal plane and also peak GRFs in vertical, anteroposterior, and mediolateral directions.The data were processed using Vicon Nexus 2.10 (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK). The dynamic plug-in-gait program was run firstly to detect the gait events (heel strike and toe off) which were defined via force plate with a 20 N threshold. Then the joint angles and moments were calculated. Finally, gait data were exported to the Vicon Polygon 4.4 (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK) to obtain the spatiotemporal variables. The kinematic and kinetic variables were normalized to 101 points for gait cycle. Additionally, joint moment and GRF were normalized to body mass for each subject. For the patients with medial compartment KOA, all the variables were averaged across five trials for each subject and then averaged across nine participants for both affected and unaffected limbs. For the controls, the variables were averaged across two limbs for five within-subject trials and then across subjects to obtain group-averaged data.


## 2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistics were performed using SPSS 20.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics were calculated for gait variables, and normality of data was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Pairedt-test was used to assess the gait symmetry between affected and unaffected limbs for patient group and also gait alterations before and after PFO. Independent t-test was used to compare between KOA patients and controls. A significance level of 0.05 was used for comparisons.


## 3. Results

The average HKA angle significantly increased for affected limb after PFO (p<0.001), and the KSS functional score and WOMAC pain score also improved (p=0.001 and p=0.002) (Table 2).Table 2
Clinical and radiographic measurement expressed as mean (SD) for KOA group.
PreoperationPostoperationHKA angle (degree)173.2 (3.5)∗176.5 (2.9)KSS functional score57.1 (10.8)∗84.3 (11.3)WOMAC pain score20.7 (9.3)∗7.7 (2.6)∗Significant difference compared with postoperation.


### 3.1. Spatiotemporal Variables

The single support phase and swing phase were significantly different between the affected and unaffected limbs in the KOA group preoperatively (p=0.008 and p=0.013) (Table 3), but no significant differences were observed for these two variables postoperatively. The KOA patients showed a decreased gait speed, step length, step cadence, stride length, single support phase, and swing phase but increased step time and double support phase compared to controls in both preoperation and postoperation (all p<0.05).Table 3
Spatiotemporal variables expressed as mean (SD) for KOA and control groups.
PreoperationPostoperationControlAffectedUnaffectedAffectedUnaffectedStep length (m)0.44 (0.10)∗0.44 (0.11)∗0.48 (0.08)∗0.49 (0.08)∗0.61(0.04)Step time (s)0.61 (0.11)∗0.57 (0.04)∗0.60 (0.14)∗0.57 (0.06)∗0.52 (0.04)Step cadence (step/s)1.68 (0.25)∗1.76 (0.13)∗1.74 (0.30)∗1.77 (0.19)∗1.94 (0.12)Single support phase (%gait cycle)31.23 (7.28)∗34.89 (5.64)∗#35.30 (3.80)∗36.17 (3.44)∗39.15 (3.80)Swing phase (%gait cycle)36.44 (3.94)∗32.78 (5.39)∗#35.92 (3.72)∗34.66 (3.66)∗38.94 (8.18)Gait speed (m/s)0.73 (0.23)∗0.85 (0.19)∗1.18 (0.09)Gait width (m)0.14 (0.04)0.12 (0.04)0.11 (0.01)Stride length (m)0.87 (0.20)∗0.97 (0.15)∗1.22 (0.08)Double support phase (%gait cycle)32.33 (9.11)∗29.17 (6.50)∗22.11 (8.18)∗Significant difference compared with control. #Significant difference compared with affected limb preoperatively.


### 3.2. Kinematic Variables

The affected limb showed an increased knee peak flexion and sagittal RoM (p=0.010 and p=0.011) but decreased frontal RoM for the hip and knee joints after PFO (p=0.039 and p=0.017) (Figure 1). The significant between-limb differences were observed for knee peak flexion and sagittal RoM preoperatively (p=0.009 and p<0.001), which were disappeared postoperatively (Table 4). Additionally, the significant difference for knee transverse RoM between the affected limb and control preoperatively (p=0.004) were also disappeared postoperatively. Moreover, compared with the controls, KOA patients showed reduced peak angle of knee flexion and ankle plantar flexion, decreased hip frontal RoM, and also sagittal RoM for the hip, knee, and ankle joints for both limbs in preoperation and postoperation (all p<0.05).Figure 1
Average lower limb joint kinematics in sagittal plane: (a) hip flexion/extension; (b) knee flexion/extension; (c) ankle dorsiflexion/plantar flexion.
(a)(b)(c)Table 4
Kinematic variables expressed as mean (SD) for KOA and control groups.
PreoperationPostoperationControlAffectedUnaffectedAffectedUnaffectedHip joint (degree)Peak flexion23.83 (7.52)24.02 (5.65)25.02 (7.77)22.47 (6.33)26.92 (5.02)Peak extension12.21 (10.38)13.65 (6.57)11.20 (11.73)14.06 (7.10)16.37 (6.79)Sagittal RoM36.03 (7.83)∗37.67 (7.13)∗36.22 (6.80)∗36.54 (6.13)∗43.28 (3.98)Frontal RoM8.80 (2.74)∗7.14 (1.66)∗7.29 (2.13)∗#7.11 (0.99)∗10.99 (1.03)Transverse RoM20.99 (15.32)23.71 (12.70)18.44 (5.27)24.41 (8.53)19.71 (6.52)Knee joint (degree)Peak flexion27.41 (19.03)∗44.03 (10.58)∗#42.75 (17.08)∗#42.72 (14.14)∗57.69 (4.73)Peak extension-1.02 (12.87)-0.42 (7.04)-3.67 (8.69)1.69 (4.91)0.84 (4.23)Sagittal RoM26.40 (13.48)∗43.62 (8.39)∗#39.08 (15.47)∗#44.42 (11.84)∗58.53 (4.24)Frontal RoM25.33 (14.41)17.77 (7.67)13.80(9.62)#16.09 (7.50)16.28 (4.24)Transverse RoM10.82 (5.01)∗14.41 (4.56)13.69 (6.45)15.12 (6.31)18.06 (3.49)Ankle joint (degree)Ankle peak dorsiflexion15.33 (6.26)16.54 (3.24)16.21 (7.91)16.24 (5.43)15.38 (3.87)Ankle peak plantar flexion4.97 (5.01)∗7.60 (5.84)∗6.11 (7.51)∗6.83 (5.54)∗14.71 (8.28)Ankle sagittal RoM20.30 (5.61)∗24.14 (5.70)∗22.32 (4.09)∗23.07 (5.94)∗30.09 (5.86)Ankle frontal RoM4.09 (2.00)4.83 (2.76)4.47 (2.96)5.19 (2.23)3.66 (1.48)Ankle transverse RoM20.10 (5.93)25.42 (8.64)21.63 (6.71)25.06 (7.22)24.68 (6.01)∗Significant difference compared with controls; #Significant difference compared with affected limb preoperatively.


### 3.3. Kinetic Variables

The affected limb showed an increased peak external hip adduction moment (HAM) after PFO (p=0.021) (Figure 2). The significant between-limb differences were observed preoperatively for peak external HAM (p=0.042) and KAM (p=0.038), peak propulsion (p=0.015), and braking GRFs (p =0.035) which were disappeared postoperatively (Table 5). Compared with controls, KOA patients showed significantly different peak moments preoperatively, including external HAM (p=0.015) and ankle inversion moment (p=0.028) for the affected limb and external HAM (p=0.028) and KAM (p=0.003) for the unaffected limb. The peak external KAM was larger for the unaffected limb postoperatively than controls (p=0.001). Additionally, KOA patients also showed reduced first and second peak vertical GRFs, decreased peak propulsion, and braking GRFs when comparing with control group in preoperation and postoperation (all p<0.05).Figure 2
Average joint kinetics and GRF during gait: (a) hip abduction/adduction moment; (b) knee abduction/adduction moment; (c) ankle inversion/eversion moment; (d) vertical GRF; (e) anteroposterior GRF; (f) mediolateral GRF.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)Table 5
Peak kinetic variables expressed as mean (SD) for KOA and control groups.
PreoperationPostoperationControlAffectedUnaffectedAffectedUnaffectedHip adduction moment (nm/kg)0.71 (0.22)∗0.83 (0.20)∗#0.88 (0.24)#0.97 (0.15)0.97 (0.09)Knee adduction moment (nm/kg)0.55 (0.16)0.67 (0.11)∗#0.59 (0.15)0.70 (0.13)∗0.49 (0.14)Ankle inversion moment (nm/kg)0.22 (0.11)∗0.19 (0.07)0.19 (0.07)0.17 (0.06)0.15 (0.05)First vertical GRF (N/kg)9.77 (0.48)∗10.04 (0.53)∗9.89 (0.65)∗10.09 (0.70)∗10.57 (0.51)Second vertical GRF (N/kg)9.75 (0.27)∗10.00 (0.51)∗9.78 (0.29)∗9.97 (0.57)∗10.58 (0.51)Anterior propulsion GRF (N/kg)1.11 (0.48)∗1.30 (0.37)∗#1.22 (0.44)∗1.19 (0.42)∗1.71 (0.18)Posterior braking GRF (N/kg)1.15 (0.34)∗1.28 (0.45)∗#1.12 (0.32)∗1.27 (0.45)∗1.61 (0.18)Medial GRF (N/kg)0.61 (0.07)0.62 (0.07)0.63 (0.10)0.62 (0.10)0.61 (0.10)Lateral GRF (N/kg)0.46 (0.18)0.56 (0.20)0.42 (0.17)0.50 (0.16)0.51 (0.19)∗Significant difference compared with controls. #Significant difference compared with affected limb preoperatively; GRF: ground reaction force.


## 3.1. Spatiotemporal Variables

The single support phase and swing phase were significantly different between the affected and unaffected limbs in the KOA group preoperatively (p=0.008 and p=0.013) (Table 3), but no significant differences were observed for these two variables postoperatively. The KOA patients showed a decreased gait speed, step length, step cadence, stride length, single support phase, and swing phase but increased step time and double support phase compared to controls in both preoperation and postoperation (all p<0.05).Table 3
Spatiotemporal variables expressed as mean (SD) for KOA and control groups.
PreoperationPostoperationControlAffectedUnaffectedAffectedUnaffectedStep length (m)0.44 (0.10)∗0.44 (0.11)∗0.48 (0.08)∗0.49 (0.08)∗0.61(0.04)Step time (s)0.61 (0.11)∗0.57 (0.04)∗0.60 (0.14)∗0.57 (0.06)∗0.52 (0.04)Step cadence (step/s)1.68 (0.25)∗1.76 (0.13)∗1.74 (0.30)∗1.77 (0.19)∗1.94 (0.12)Single support phase (%gait cycle)31.23 (7.28)∗34.89 (5.64)∗#35.30 (3.80)∗36.17 (3.44)∗39.15 (3.80)Swing phase (%gait cycle)36.44 (3.94)∗32.78 (5.39)∗#35.92 (3.72)∗34.66 (3.66)∗38.94 (8.18)Gait speed (m/s)0.73 (0.23)∗0.85 (0.19)∗1.18 (0.09)Gait width (m)0.14 (0.04)0.12 (0.04)0.11 (0.01)Stride length (m)0.87 (0.20)∗0.97 (0.15)∗1.22 (0.08)Double support phase (%gait cycle)32.33 (9.11)∗29.17 (6.50)∗22.11 (8.18)∗Significant difference compared with control. #Significant difference compared with affected limb preoperatively.


## 3.2. Kinematic Variables

The affected limb showed an increased knee peak flexion and sagittal RoM (p=0.010 and p=0.011) but decreased frontal RoM for the hip and knee joints after PFO (p=0.039 and p=0.017) (Figure 1). The significant between-limb differences were observed for knee peak flexion and sagittal RoM preoperatively (p=0.009 and p<0.001), which were disappeared postoperatively (Table 4). Additionally, the significant difference for knee transverse RoM between the affected limb and control preoperatively (p=0.004) were also disappeared postoperatively. Moreover, compared with the controls, KOA patients showed reduced peak angle of knee flexion and ankle plantar flexion, decreased hip frontal RoM, and also sagittal RoM for the hip, knee, and ankle joints for both limbs in preoperation and postoperation (all p<0.05).Figure 1
Average lower limb joint kinematics in sagittal plane: (a) hip flexion/extension; (b) knee flexion/extension; (c) ankle dorsiflexion/plantar flexion.
(a)(b)(c)Table 4
Kinematic variables expressed as mean (SD) for KOA and control groups.
PreoperationPostoperationControlAffectedUnaffectedAffectedUnaffectedHip joint (degree)Peak flexion23.83 (7.52)24.02 (5.65)25.02 (7.77)22.47 (6.33)26.92 (5.02)Peak extension12.21 (10.38)13.65 (6.57)11.20 (11.73)14.06 (7.10)16.37 (6.79)Sagittal RoM36.03 (7.83)∗37.67 (7.13)∗36.22 (6.80)∗36.54 (6.13)∗43.28 (3.98)Frontal RoM8.80 (2.74)∗7.14 (1.66)∗7.29 (2.13)∗#7.11 (0.99)∗10.99 (1.03)Transverse RoM20.99 (15.32)23.71 (12.70)18.44 (5.27)24.41 (8.53)19.71 (6.52)Knee joint (degree)Peak flexion27.41 (19.03)∗44.03 (10.58)∗#42.75 (17.08)∗#42.72 (14.14)∗57.69 (4.73)Peak extension-1.02 (12.87)-0.42 (7.04)-3.67 (8.69)1.69 (4.91)0.84 (4.23)Sagittal RoM26.40 (13.48)∗43.62 (8.39)∗#39.08 (15.47)∗#44.42 (11.84)∗58.53 (4.24)Frontal RoM25.33 (14.41)17.77 (7.67)13.80(9.62)#16.09 (7.50)16.28 (4.24)Transverse RoM10.82 (5.01)∗14.41 (4.56)13.69 (6.45)15.12 (6.31)18.06 (3.49)Ankle joint (degree)Ankle peak dorsiflexion15.33 (6.26)16.54 (3.24)16.21 (7.91)16.24 (5.43)15.38 (3.87)Ankle peak plantar flexion4.97 (5.01)∗7.60 (5.84)∗6.11 (7.51)∗6.83 (5.54)∗14.71 (8.28)Ankle sagittal RoM20.30 (5.61)∗24.14 (5.70)∗22.32 (4.09)∗23.07 (5.94)∗30.09 (5.86)Ankle frontal RoM4.09 (2.00)4.83 (2.76)4.47 (2.96)5.19 (2.23)3.66 (1.48)Ankle transverse RoM20.10 (5.93)25.42 (8.64)21.63 (6.71)25.06 (7.22)24.68 (6.01)∗Significant difference compared with controls; #Significant difference compared with affected limb preoperatively.


## 3.3. Kinetic Variables

The affected limb showed an increased peak external hip adduction moment (HAM) after PFO (p=0.021) (Figure 2). The significant between-limb differences were observed preoperatively for peak external HAM (p=0.042) and KAM (p=0.038), peak propulsion (p=0.015), and braking GRFs (p =0.035) which were disappeared postoperatively (Table 5). Compared with controls, KOA patients showed significantly different peak moments preoperatively, including external HAM (p=0.015) and ankle inversion moment (p=0.028) for the affected limb and external HAM (p=0.028) and KAM (p=0.003) for the unaffected limb. The peak external KAM was larger for the unaffected limb postoperatively than controls (p=0.001). Additionally, KOA patients also showed reduced first and second peak vertical GRFs, decreased peak propulsion, and braking GRFs when comparing with control group in preoperation and postoperation (all p<0.05).Figure 2
Average joint kinetics and GRF during gait: (a) hip abduction/adduction moment; (b) knee abduction/adduction moment; (c) ankle inversion/eversion moment; (d) vertical GRF; (e) anteroposterior GRF; (f) mediolateral GRF.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)Table 5
Peak kinetic variables expressed as mean (SD) for KOA and control groups.
PreoperationPostoperationControlAffectedUnaffectedAffectedUnaffectedHip adduction moment (nm/kg)0.71 (0.22)∗0.83 (0.20)∗#0.88 (0.24)#0.97 (0.15)0.97 (0.09)Knee adduction moment (nm/kg)0.55 (0.16)0.67 (0.11)∗#0.59 (0.15)0.70 (0.13)∗0.49 (0.14)Ankle inversion moment (nm/kg)0.22 (0.11)∗0.19 (0.07)0.19 (0.07)0.17 (0.06)0.15 (0.05)First vertical GRF (N/kg)9.77 (0.48)∗10.04 (0.53)∗9.89 (0.65)∗10.09 (0.70)∗10.57 (0.51)Second vertical GRF (N/kg)9.75 (0.27)∗10.00 (0.51)∗9.78 (0.29)∗9.97 (0.57)∗10.58 (0.51)Anterior propulsion GRF (N/kg)1.11 (0.48)∗1.30 (0.37)∗#1.22 (0.44)∗1.19 (0.42)∗1.71 (0.18)Posterior braking GRF (N/kg)1.15 (0.34)∗1.28 (0.45)∗#1.12 (0.32)∗1.27 (0.45)∗1.61 (0.18)Medial GRF (N/kg)0.61 (0.07)0.62 (0.07)0.63 (0.10)0.62 (0.10)0.61 (0.10)Lateral GRF (N/kg)0.46 (0.18)0.56 (0.20)0.42 (0.17)0.50 (0.16)0.51 (0.19)∗Significant difference compared with controls. #Significant difference compared with affected limb preoperatively; GRF: ground reaction force.


## 4. Discussion

An asymmetrical gait pattern was often observed for KOA patients. In order to reduce the knee pain in the affected limb, KOA patients increased single support phase and decreased swing phase in the unaffected limb preoperatively. However, this phenomenon disappeared after PFO indicating an improvement of gait symmetry postoperatively. Although significant difference still existed between the postoperative KOA patients and controls for most of the spatiotemporal variables, the results after PFO were encouraging, such as increased gait speed, larger step and stride lengths, and decreased double support phase, which agreed with previous findings [7, 12] and also the postoperative reduced WOMAC pain score.Reduced RoM is usually considered as a response to the pain and dysfunction associated with degenerative joint disease [18, 19]. In our study, decreased sagittal RoM for all lower extremity joints in KOA patients aligned with previous findings, especially for the affected limb [19]. The significant differences between affected and unaffected limbs preoperative observed only in knee sagittal plane suggested that the KOA patients did not use a dynamic hip and ankle compensation strategy for the reduced knee flexion. Although a smaller sagittal RoM was found for both hip and ankle joints in KOA patients preoperatively and postoperatively than controls, further analyses indicated that reduced hip sagittal RoM was related to both peak flexion and extension, but the ankle sagittal RoM difference was mainly caused by a smaller peak plantar flexion which may result in a decreased push off and short step length.The previous guidelines for the management of KOA mainly focus on knee pain relief and functional improvement [20]. Beside the relieved pain and improved knee function based on WOMAC and KSS scores after PFO, the knee peak flexion and sagittal RoM also significantly increased postoperatively for the affected limb, and the magnitudes were similar to the unaffected limb, which supported the feasibility and effectiveness of PFO to treat medial compartment KOA. Whether the PFO affected the ankle stability is still controversial. Some research indicated that PFO could damage the conduction path of external condyle and reduce the stabilizing effect of the ankle joint, resulting in ankle joint looseness or valgus [21, 22]. However, similar ankle frontal and transverse RoM between postoperative KOA and control groups suggests that preserving enough distal fibula length could reduce the influence of PFO on the ankle joint movement [23].Frontal plane knee laxity and instability were commonly reported during gait in KOA patients [24], which contributes to the altered gait pattern including an increased knee adduction angle [25]. Our results found that the preoperative KOA group showed an approximately eight-degree larger knee frontal RoM in the affected limb than unaffected limb and controls. After PFO for 6 months, a comparable knee frontal RoM was observed for the affected limb indicating a likely improvement in knee stability during movement.The KAM reflected the magnitude of medial joint loading, and medial KOA patients usually showed a large peak external KAM during stance phase [26], which was also observed in our study, especially for the unaffected limb. In order to relieve knee pain and reduce knee loading, a compensatory strategy of laterally shifting the trunk to the affected side was previously reported to reduce KAM [27, 28], which may increase the loading and risk of osteoarthritis in the contralateral knee joint. Surprisingly, a decreased peak external KAM in postoperative KOA patients was not presently observed. This result could be partially explained by the increased gait speed and corrected HKA angle. On one hand, KAM had a positive correlation with gait speed [29], so increased gait speed postoperatively raised the peak external KAM. On the other hand, the corrected HKA angle could decrease the peak external KAM by shortening the adduction moment arm. Therefore, the phenomenon of knee pain relief in the affected limb postoperatively seemed to not cause a reduction of knee loading in the medial compartment but a redistributed knee pressure due to a more neutral alignment and improved medial knee joint space [1, 8].KOA not only affects the knee joint, but also the hip and ankle joint, as these three joints operate as a kinetic chain during gait. Decreased peak external HAM were observed for the KOA patients preoperatively compared to the controls, especially for the affected limb, which reduced the demand on hip abductors and lead to muscle weakness [25, 30]. After PFO at 6 months, the peak external HAM for both affected and unaffected limbs increased, and the HAM differences disappeared between patients and controls, which was the results of improved gait speed and HKA angle [12, 14]. Interestingly, the peak external ankle inversion moment was about 47% higher in the affected limb for the preoperative KOA patients than controls; such change could be a risk factor for secondary arthritis and the reason of the ankle subluxation commonly seen in KOA patients [31]. The ankle inversion moment was reduced for both limbs postoperatively and was close to the magnitude of the control group, indicating the positive effect of PFO on the ankle joint [11].KOA patients showed a reduced gait speed that smooths out the vertical acceleration and deceleration to reduce knee stress [15], which explained the observation of smaller peaks in the first and second vertical GRF compared with controls. KOA patients depended on the unaffected limb more to prevent the foot slipping at heel strike and propel the body forward at toe off before PFO [32], which was reflected by the larger propulsion and braking GRFs than the affected limb. This asymmetrical phenomenon disappeared postoperatively due to the knee pain relief and functional improvement. The mediolateral GRF depended mostly on the relationship between the position of body center of mass and the foot. Therefore, the increased gait speed combined with similar medial and lateral GRFs indicated an enhancement in body control in the mediolateral direction after PFO [33].Two limitations existed in this study. First, the sample size was relatively small, the follow-up period was relatively short, and a larger sample size with longer follow-up period is needed to better understand the potential benefits and limitations of PFO. Second, the magnitude and distribution of knee loads was not directly addressed. Future research focused on gait simulation with musculoskeletal models could help further identify the biomechanical mechanisms of PFO to treat medial KOA.


## 5. Conclusions

This study investigated the gait characteristics in patients with medial compartment KOA after PFO. The improved hip and knee joint functions in the affected limb after PFO were verified by knee peak flexion, peak external HAM, knee sagittal, and frontal RoMs. Moreover, gait symmetry improved postoperatively and was confirmed by single support and swing phases, knee peak flexion and sagittal RoM, peak external HAM and KAM, and peak anterior and posterior GRF. The present results provided biomechanical evidence of a benefit from PFO, which may be applied to gait training and rehabilitation interventions for KOA patients after PFO.



---

*Source: 1869922-2022-06-23.xml*