Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2026
Oscillation and Reaction Board Techniques for Estimating Inertial Properties of a Below-knee Prosthesis
Published on: May 8, 2014
Gait assessment in patients with thrust plate prosthesis and intramedullary stemmed prosthesis implanted to each hip
Salih Angin1, Vasfi Karatosun, Bayram Unver
1School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Dokuz Eylul University, Inciralti, 35340 Izmir, Turkey. salih.angin@deu.edu.tr
Insights
This study compared gait analysis in patients with intramedullary stemmed prosthesis (ISP) and thrust plate prosthesis (TPP). Results showed no significant differences in gait parameters or clinical outcomes between the two hip implants.
Area of Science:
- Orthopedic Surgery
- Biomechanics
- Gait Analysis
Background:
- Comparative gait analysis between intramedullary stemmed prosthesis (ISP) and thrust plate prosthesis (TPP) is lacking.
- Hip arthroplasty aims to restore function and reduce pain, with prosthesis choice potentially influencing biomechanics.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare gait parameters and clinical outcomes in patients with bilateral hip replacements using ISP and TPP.
Main Methods:
- Four patients with coxarthrosis underwent bilateral hip replacement with ISP and TPP.
- Gait analysis was performed using a 3D motion capture system and force plates.
- Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS).
Main Results:
- Mean HHS and follow-up duration showed no significant differences between TPP and ISP groups.
- Gait parameters from TPP-implanted hips were not statistically different from ISP-implanted hips.
- No remarkable differences in gait were observed between the two prosthesis types.
Conclusions:
- Both ISP and TPP demonstrate comparable clinical outcomes and gait performance.
- The biomechanical specifications of ISP and TPP do not lead to significant gait differences in this patient cohort.
Introduction:
There has not been any study regarding comparative gait analysis in patients with intramedullary stemmed prosthesis (ISP) and thrust plate prosthesis (TPP) implanted to each hip.
Patients And Methods:
Four patients (three females and one male) who had undergone operation due to coxarthrosis were selected. The mean age was 60.5 (37-78) years. TPP and ISP had been implanted to the left and right hip, respectively, in three patients, and one patient received TPP to the right and ISP to the left hip. Gait was analyzed with a BTS Elite System consisting six cameras and two Kistler force plates using Helen Hayes marker set to assess the gait parameters. The clinical outcome was also evaluated according to Harris hip score (HHS).
Results:
The average HHS was 95.0 (82-100) points after a mean follow-up of 45.0 (30-50) months for TPP and 94.5 (80-100) points after a follow-up of 60.0 (14-122) months for ISP. Neither of the HHS scores and follow-up time nor gait parameters obtained from the TPP-implanted side were statistically different when compared to those of the ISP-implanted side.
Conclusion:
TPP and ISP as the implants with their own biomechanical specifications did not produce any remarkable difference in gait.
