The need for an objective tool to assess the outcome of total knee replacement (TKR) surgery is widely recognized. This study investigates the potential of an objective diagnostic tool for assessing the outcome of TKR surgery based on motion analysis techniques. The diagnostic tool has two main elements: collection of data using motion analysis, and the assessment of knee function using a classifier that is based around the Dempster—Shafer theory of evidence. The tool was used to analyse the knee function of nine TKR subjects pre-operatively and at three stages post-operatively. Using important measurable characteristics of the knee, the tool was able to establish the level of benefit achieved by surgery and to enable a comparison of subjects. No subject recovered normal knee function following TKR surgery. This has important implications for knee implant designs.
MoranC. G.HortonT. C.Total knee replacement: The joint of the decade. Br. Med. J., 2000, 320, 820.
2.
AndriacchiT. P.Functional analysis of pre and post-knee surgery: Total knee arthroplasty and ACL reconstruction. Trans. ASME J. Biomech. Engng, 1993, 115, 575–581.
3.
MylesC. M.RoweP. J.WalkerC. R. C.NuttonR. W.Knee joint functional range of movement prior to and following total knee arthroplasty measured using flexible electrogoniometry. Gait Posture, 2002, 16, 46–54.
4.
IrrgangJ. J.Synder-MacklerL.WainnerR. S.FuF. H.HarnerC. D.Development of a patient-reported measure of function of the knee. J. Bone Jt Surg. Am., 1998, 808, 1132–1145.
5.
DaviesA. P.Rating systems for total knee replacement. Knee, 2002, 9, 261–266.
6.
CataniF.BenedettiM. G.De FeliceR.BuzziR.GianniniS.AgliettiP.Mobile and fixed bearing total knee prosthesis functional comparison during stair climbing. Clin. Biomechanics, 2003, 18, 410–418.
7.
BenedettiM. G.CataniF.BilottaT. W.MarcacciM.MarianiE.GianniniS.Muscle activation pattern and gait biomechanics after total knee replacement. Clin. Biomechanics, 2003, 18, 871–876.
8.
FuchsS.FlörenM.SkwaraA.TibeskuC. O.Quantitative gait analysis in unconstrained total knee arthroplasty patients. Int. J. Rehabil. Res., 2002, 25, 65–70.
9.
WhittleM. W.JeffersonR. J.Functional biomechanical assessment of the Oxford meniscal knee. J. Arthroplasty, 1989, 4(3), 231–243.
10.
ChaoE. Y.LaughmanR. K.StaufferR. N.Biomechanical gait evaluation of pre and postoperative total knee replacement patients. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg., 1980, 97, 309–317.
11.
HoltC. A.JonesL.O'CallaghanP. O.RoyS.WilsonC.Comparison of fixed and rotating bearing knee replacements in-vivo using a three-dimensional motion capture technique: Preliminary results. In Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress of Biomechanics, Calgary, Canada, 8–13 August 2002 (Omnipress, Calgary, Canada).
12.
RoyS.WilsonC.WilliamsR.SharmaA. J.HoltC.O'CallaghanP.Mobile bearing versus fixed bearing total knee replacement: A prospective randomised trial. J. Bone Jt Surg. Br., 2002, 84(suppl. III), 324.
13.
JacobsN. A.SkoreckiJ.CharnleyJ.Analysis of the vertical component of force in normal and pathological gait. J. Biomechanics, 1972, 5, 11–34.
14.
BenedettiM. G.CataniF.LeardiniA.PignottiE.GianniniS.Data management in gait analysis for clinical applications. Clin. Biomechanics, 1998, 13(3), 204–215.
15.
ChauT.A review of analytical techniques for gait data. Part 1: Fuzzy, statistical and fractal methods. Gait Posture, 2001, 13, 49–66.
16.
DeluzioK. J.WyssU. P.ZeeB.CostiganP. A.SorbieC.Principal component models of knee kinematics and kinetics: Normal vs. pathological gait patterns. Hum. Movement Sci., 1997, 16, 201–217.
17.
ChaoE. Y.LaughmanR. K.SchneiderE.StaufferR. N.Normative data of knee joint motion and ground reaction forces in adult level walking. J. Biomechanics, 1983, 16(3), 219–233.
18.
JonesL.The development of a novel method for the classification of normal and osteoarthritic knee function. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, 2004.
19.
JonesL.BeynonM. J.HoltC. A.RoyS.An application of the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence to the classification of knee function and detection of improvement due to total knee replacement surgery. J. Biomechanics, 2006, 39, 2512–2520.
20.
BeynonM. J.JonesL.HoltC. A.Classification of osteoarthritic and normal knee function using three-dimensional motion analysis and the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernatics Part A: Systems Hum., 2006, 36, 173–186.
21.
HoltC. A.HayesN. J.van DeursenR. W. M.O'CallaghanP. T.Three-dimensional analysis of the tibiofemoral joint using external marker clusters and the JCS approach - comparison of normal and osteoarthritic knee function. In Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering - 3 (Eds MiddletonJ.JonesM. L.ShriveN. G.PandeG. N.), 2001, pp. 289–294 (Gordon and Breach, London).
22.
WalkerP. S.SathasivamS.Design forms of total knee replacement. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine, 2000, 214, 101–119.
23.
JonesL.HoltC. A.EvansR.RoyS.Which parameters are important in identifying osteoarthritic knee function? A comparison between an objective analysis and clinical opinion. Gait Posture, 2004, 20(suppl. 1), S75.
24.
JonesL.BeynonM. J.HoltC. A.The development of a quantitative outcome measure. J. Bone Jt Surg. Br., and 2006, 88(suppl. III), 413.
