Skip to main content

Table3 Effect of treatment pre vs post operatively in the bilateral group; values are expressed in mean with SD

From: Is simultaneous bilateral total hip arthroplasty deleterious in a biomechanical point of view? A comparative gait analysis study

 

PRE

MEAN (SD)

POST

MEAN (SD)

2 SIDES

p pre vs post

Spatio temporal

Speed (km/h)

2.7 (1)

3.3 (0.55)

0.035*

Step length (m)

0.495 (0.15)

0.575 (0.07)

0.046*

Cadence (step/min)

101.3 (14.4)

106.5 (8.6)

0.318

Kinematics

ROM pelvis sagittal (°)

3.94 (1.3)

3.92 (1.1)

0.921

ROM hip sagittal (°)

33.56 (8.2)

37.67 (4)

0.072

ROM knee sagittal stance (°)

2.74 (5.7)

6.61 (5.5)

0.009*

ROM knee sagittal swing (°)

46.51 (9.1)

50.29 (6.9)

0.091

ROM ankle sagittal (°)

20.91 (6.7)

23.12 (5.2)

0.166

ROM pelvis frontal (°)

5.01 (2.5)

5.69 (2.3)

0.424

ROM hip frontal (°)

7.68 (2.8)

9.58 (3.6)

0.031*

ROM pelvis transverse (°)

6.23 (2.4)

6.31 (1.5)

0.921

Kinetics

Hip Moment extension (N m/kg)

0.6 (0.26)

0.582 (0.21)

0.833

Hip Moment flexion (N m/kg)

- 0.561 (0.32)

- 0.388 (0.27)

0.167

Mechanics

External work (J/kg m)

0.389 (0.31)

0.272 (0.05)

0.199

Internal work (J/kg m)

0.196 (0.04)

0.265 (0.06)

 < 0.001*

Total work (J/kg m)

0.588 (0.29)

0.535 (0.09)

0.564

Recovery (%)

49.1 (21.1)

55.7 (11.8)

0.248

Energetics

Cost (J/kg m)

3.253 (0.85)

2.974 (0.62)

0.364

Efficiency (%)

18.16 (3.8)

18.7 (5)

0.694

Oxford score (/48)

 

18.2 (6.6)

45.9 (1.8)

 < 0.001*

SF36-PC (%)

 

43.3 (16.9)

77.3 (11.4)

 < 0.001*

SF36-MC (%)

 

45.2 (18.1)

75.3 (10)

 < 0.001*