Post-traumatic ankle arthritis Musculoskeletal Diseases
Conditions
Interventions
All patients test two types of shoes: one standard shoe, and the same shoes adapted with a rocker profile (including a proximally placed rocker, heel rounding and stiffened sole), with a wash-out peri
Sponsors
University Medical Centre Groningen
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: 1. Age = 18 years 2. Fracture of tibia, fibula or talus in medical history 3. Daily ankle and/or foot pain with a NRS score at baseline > 3 4. Radiological evidence for osteoarthritis in tibial-talar joint 5. Being able to walk at least 100 meters without any support 6. Signed informed consent
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: 1. Concomitant conditions like cardiovascular disease or neuromuscular disease or musculo-skeletal problems in other joints that intervene with walking 2. Ankle arthrodesis or arthroplasty in place 3. Other forms of osteoarthritis (e.g., primary osteoarthritis, OA secondary to rheumatoid arthritis or haemophilia) 4. Leg length difference of more than 2 cm 5. Planned activities within the research period, like holiday, that influence the normal level of activity 6. Limited ankle motion in rest, defined as total passive ROM (range of motion) < 10°
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| 1. Primary biomechanical outcome: range of motion (sagittal) in ankle during stance phase. The ROM was calculated by adding the maximum dorsal flexion during stance phase to the maximum plantar flexion from the early stance phase 2. Primary clinical outcome: pain score, reported by patients using numeric rating scale scoring (0-10). Patients kept a diary for the whole 6 weeks (so including washout), for recording the daily average pain and the daily maximum pain | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Secondary biomechanical outcomes: sagittal ankle moments (Nm/kg), step length (m), speed (m/s), cadence (steps/min) and stance time (s). The biomechanical parameters were measured using the VICON system. Sixteen reflective markers were placed bilaterally on anatomical landmarks according to the lower body Plug-in-Gait model of Vicon. The markers were tracked by an eight-camera motion capture system (Vicon, Oxford, UK, fs = 100 Hz) to measure the kinematics. Force data were measured by force plates (AMTI; Watertown, Massachusetts, fs = 1000 Hz). Joint kinematics and kinetics were computed using VICON Nexus software and further processed using MatLab. | — |
Countries
Netherlands
Contacts
Public ContactIrene Jetten
Outcome results
None listed