Back to all available

Lower peak knee joint kinetics during walking in patients with knee reconstruction for bone sarcoma compared to healthy controls

oncology
rehabilitation

Abstract

Background. Osteosarcoma patients who have undergone prosthetic lower limb reconstruction following tumor resection walk at a slower preferred speed than healthy controls. In addition, they demonstrate lower peak isokinetic knee extension torques, which may explain why differences in sagittal plane knee joint kinematics during walking have been observed. However, mechanisms for this and the associated knee joint kinetics are not well understood, particularly at matched walking speeds.

Methods. This observational case-control study compared sagittal plane lower limb walking gait characteristics between patients who have undergone prosthetic reconstruction and matched healthy controls across their preferred and matched walking speeds. Data were collected from 18 control participants and 17 patients while walking on a force-instrumented treadmill at different speeds. Spatiotemporal variables, peak knee flexion angle, peak knee extensor moments (torques), and peak knee joint power were compared between groups.

Results. Patients walked with a slower preferred speed than the control group. When comparing lower limb gait mechanics at matched speeds, patients demonstrated lower magnitude peak knee extensor moments than the control group, and these differences were greater at faster speeds. At the fastest walking speed, patients also displayed lower peak knee joint power compared to the control group. The differences in knee joint kinetics observed between groups may be due to an inability amongst patients to generate the magnitudes of knee extensor force that the control group can generate.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].