Skip to main content

Table 4 Effect of surgery in the unilateral group compared to the bilateral group; values are expressed in mean with standard deviation (SD)

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

 

Unilateral

MEAN (SD)

Bilateral

MEAN (SD)

p

Spatio temporal

Speed (km/h)

-0.03 (0.65)

0.593(0.96)

0.031*

Step length (m)

-0.01 (0.159)

0.08 (0.14)

0.131

Cadence (step/min)

-10.9 (31.3)

4.7 (17.1)

0.116

Kinematics

ROM pelvis sagittal (°)

-0.73 (1.1)

-0.28 (1.5)

0.377

ROM hip sagittal (°)

6.7 (12.1)

4.1 (8.3)

0.398

ROM knee sagittal stance (°)

-0.9 (4.4)

2.7 (6.3)

0.097

ROM knee sagittal swing (°)

7.5 (14.5)

0.3 (15.3)

0.124

ROM ankle sagittal (°)

-0.2 (6.7)

-0.2 (10.9)

0.994

ROM pelvis frontal (°)

-0.7 (2.3)

0.3 (3.5)

0.459

ROM hip frontal (°)

0.1 (3.9)

1.9 (3.1)

0.248

ROM pelvis transverse (°)

1.1 (2.5)

-0.3 (3.5)

0.083

Kinetics

Hip Moment extension (N m/kg)

0.03 (0.16)

-0.05 (0.46)

0.491

Hip Moment flexion (N m/kg)

- 0.09 (0.24)

0.14 (0.48)

0.132

Mechanics

External work (J/kg m)

-0.23 (0.29)

-0.12 (0.33)

0.374

Internal work (J/kg m)

0.003 (0.05)

0.07 (0.06)

0.011*

Total work (J/kg m)

-0.22 (0.27)

-0.05 (0.34)

0.160

Recovery (%)

20.3 (16.2)

6.5 (20.3)

0.095

Energetics

Cost (J/kg m)

-0.35 (1.17)

0.15 (2.16)

0.345

Efficiency (%)

-3.1 (15.8)

4.1 (9.4)

0.170

Oxford score (/48)

 

16.7 (9.9)

27.3 (19.3)

0.119

SF36-PC (%)

 

14.8 (10.1)

35.6 (32.1)

0.012*

SF36-MC (%)

 

10.9 (10.2)

28.7 (35.2)

0.078