Case of the Week 02/07/2001: What people said...


Dear all,

The sheer amount of data for the latest case is somewhat overwhelming,
isn't it!

I thought that might be a good place to start - what variables can we
pick off the curves to summarise the data in a meaningful way?

I have selected a few, the changes in which I present in the following
graphs:

/archives/10-4-00/tempspat.gif
/archives/10-4-00/kinem.gif
/archives/10-4-00/kinet.gif

Here's my summary of what happened:

1. There was a 20% increase in walking speed entirely due to an
increased stride.
2. There was a very large reduction in left double support (down to 9%
cycle).
3. Most kinematic changes were in the left leg: increased hip extension,
straightening of the knee at initial contact, and increased ankle range
of motion.
4. The right ankle is now generating much more power, and absorbing
less. The right stance knee moment and left ankle moments have
normalised.

So, all in all, this was a very successful case. The only residual
problem appears to be a slightly flexed right knee at contact, and
slightly weak left ankle. I think these could well improve with time and
a little physical therapy.

Congratulations to Andreas and the rest of the Speising team (I guess
the surgeon deserves a little credit too!). I'd be interested to hear
what the rest of you think.

Chris

Just a quick addendum - I realise that I carried over the terminology on
the automated printout and used the phrase "left double support".
According to Jim Wall, the double support phase can be usefully split
into "braking" and "thrusting" parts - I think in this case it is the
thrusting phase which is short. This might be a point for discussion,
since it's of note that the left stance phase has shortened to 56.7%. I
wonder why?

Does anyone else split up the double support phase in this way?
--
Dr. Chris Kirtley MD PhD
Associate Professor
HomeCare Technologies for the 21st Century (Whitaker Foundation)
NIDRR Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on TeleRehabilitation
Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, Pangborn 105B
Catholic University of America


Dear Chris,
I was studied the change of left and right double
support in patient before and after hip replacement.
We have found that over 12 patients, there was a
decrease of 250% of (left double
support-right double support) whereas for the same
period (6 months)the speed has increased 25% (K.
Aminian, K. Rezakhanlou, E. De Andres, C. Fritsch,
P.-F. Leyvraz and P. Robert, Temporal
features estimation during walking using miniature
accelerometers: an analysis of gait
improvement after hip arthroplasty,
Med.Biol.Eng.Comput., 37, 686-691, 1999)
I was also confronted to the choice of terminology . I
have used left and right double support as you.
However after looking to the following discussion, I
think that the the terms of INITIAL and
TERMINAL double support are more clear.
There was a discussion about this terminology in
Biomech-l archive. You can find it at:
http://biomch-l.isbweb.org
There is also a definition on basic terminology of
Gait and Clinical Movement Analysis Society at
http://www.gcmas.org/terminology.pdf:

     2.06 Double support (DS): The period of time when
both feet are in contact with the
     ground. This occurs twice in the gait cycle, at
the beginning and end of the stance phase.
     Also referred to as left and right double limb
stance or LDLS and RDLS respectively.
     For example, LDLS refers to the DS after left
initial contact.

Kind Regards
Kamiar Aminian



I have just had a quick look at the CGA case.  For some reason the video
won't show.  However, I have looked at the figures, albeit briefly.  I am
assuming that you are talking about one of the double supports.  What you
have is a reduction in double support on the right from 14.5% to 11.6%.
This has made the gait more symmetrical but what caused it?  Well the
increase in walking speed has to be a major factor.  For the increase in
speed I would anticipate an approximately 3% decrease in braking double
support for a normal subject.  However, having not seen the video I will
hold off on any further discussion.

James C. Wall, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Physical Therapy
University of South Alabama
1504 Springhill Avenue, Room 1214
Mobile AL 36604

        Phone:  (334) 434 3575
          Fax:  (334) 434 3822
       e-mail:  jcwall@jaguar1.usouthal.edu



Dear all,

Thanks to Kamiar Aminian for his contribution to the double support
debate. Just so everyone is clear what we're talking about, I've colored
in a journal figure to show the double support periods:

/archives/10-4-00/cycle.gif

As you can see, the right initial double support is the same as the left
terminal double support, and vice versa. I have often wondered whether
the relative size of these phases conveys any useful information. As I
mentioned, Jim Wall refers to them as the braking and thrusting double
support periods, which I think is a much more functional terminology.
So, a reduction in initial (braking) DS of one limb is associated with a
reduced terminal (thrusting) DS on the contralateral side. In this case
(12mo post-op):

Right Stance = 63.18            Left Stance = 56.73% (weaker side)
Right Swing = 36.82             Left Stance = 43.27%
Right Initial (braking) DS = Left Terminal (thrusting) DS = 11.6%
Left Initial (braking) DS = Right Terminal (thrusting) DS = 9.3%

These figures are quite noticeably different, so I wonder if they tell
us anything? It would be nice if they did, because this sort of
information is (relatively) easy to measure. For eample, is it simply a
compensation for weak push-off - in this case the left side is weaker
and so its thrusting DS is therefore increased. Is this a general rule?

Chris
--
Dr. Chris Kirtley MD PhD
Associate Professor
HomeCare Technologies for the 21st Century (Whitaker Foundation)
NIDRR Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on TeleRehabilitation
Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, Pangborn 105B
Catholic University of America



Dear Chris

The double support phase results when both feet are in contact with
the ground. My latest results using a 2m pressure plate actually
allows us to determine exactly which parts of the feet are in contact
at the same time during double support.
 
In the normal foot it is clear that during walking the parts of the
heel (initial support) match exactly the parts of the opposite foot
(terminal support). The matching is so perfect that the combination
produces a "third footprint" that is difficult to distinguish from a
normal footprint. As the heel "rolls on" during initial support, the
forefoot of the other foot exactly "rolls off" during terminal
support.

Superimposing the two in time produces a normal footprint. At any
instant any anatomical  point taken from either footprint is always
in contact with the ground. At any instant  one anatomical point
taken from either footprint is always in contact with the ground. But
the amazing thing is that the same point from both feet is seldom
ever in contact simultaneously.

At least for the normal foot at 100hz.
The differences between left and right will reveal a lot. Aristotle
long ago (384 BC) pointed out that the left and right feet fulfilled
different roles.

Craig Nevin
Anatomical Engineer.
University of Cape Town


Back to Case