Comparison between passive knee kinematics during surgery and active knee kinematics during walking: A preliminary study

by Xavier Gasparutto, Alice Bonnefoy-Mazure, Michael Attias, Raphaël Dumas, Stéphane Armand, Hermès Miozzari

Recovery of function is among a patient’s main expectations when undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, normal gait knee function is not always completely restored, which can affect patient satisfaction and quality of life. Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) allows surgeons to evaluate passive knee kinematics intra-operatively. Understanding associations between knee kinematics measured during surgery and during daily activities, such as walking, could help define criteria for success based on knee function and not only on the correct alignment of the implant or the leg. This preliminary study compared passive knee kinematics measured during surgery with active kinematics measured during walking. Eight patients underwent a treadmill gait analysis using the KneeKG™ system both before surgery and three months afterwards. Knee kinematics were measured during CAS both before and after TKA implantation. The anatomical axes of the KneeKG™ and CAS systems were homogenised using a two-level, multi-body kinematics optimisation with a kinematic chain based on the calibration measured during CAS. A Bland–Altman analysis was performed before and after TKA for adduction–abduction angle, internal–external rotation, and anterior–posterior displacement over the whole gait cycle, at the single stance phase and at the swing phase. Homogenising the anatomical axes between CAS and treadmill gait led to limited median bias and limits of agreement (post-surgery -0.6 ± 3.6 deg, -2.7 ± 3.6 deg, and -0.2 ± 2.4 mm for adduction–abduction, internal–external rotation and anterior–posterior displacement, respectively). At the individual level, correlations between the two systems were mostly weak (R² < 0.3) over the whole gait cycle, indicating low kinematic consistency between the two measurements. However, correlations were better at the phase level, especially the swing phase. The multiple sources of differences did not enable us to conclude whether they came from anatomical and biomechanical differences or from measurement system errors.