Concordance between computerised gait analysis and physical examination in patients with augmented femoral anteversion
Introduction: Human gait is the highest point in a person's functional independence; therefore, its importance as a movement pattern has led to the development of measuring tools. Objective: To assess the concordance between 2 measuring tools: computerised gait analysis (CGA) and physical exami...
- Autores:
- Tipo de recurso:
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2018
- Institución:
- Universidad del Rosario
- Repositorio:
- Repositorio EdocUR - U. Rosario
- Idioma:
- eng
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:repository.urosario.edu.co:10336/22918
- Acceso en línea:
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rh.2017.11.002
https://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/22918
- Palabra clave:
- Bone anteversion
Femur
Gait analysis
Physical examination
- Rights
- License
- Abierto (Texto Completo)
Summary: | Introduction: Human gait is the highest point in a person's functional independence; therefore, its importance as a movement pattern has led to the development of measuring tools. Objective: To assess the concordance between 2 measuring tools: computerised gait analysis (CGA) and physical examination (PE) in patients with increased femoral anteversion without neurological alterations. Methods: We conducted an observational analytic study of concordance. Data were obtained retrospectively from 2010 to 2014 in the gait analysis laboratory of the Roosevelt Children's Orthopaedics Institute through a single application of CGA and PE. Results: There were evident alterations in the PE because, at the hip, the internal-external rotation range decreases in the stance and swing phases. In the knee, there was a decrease in the flexion-extension range during the swing phase and in the ankle there was also a decrease in the dorsiflexion-plantarflexion range in the stance and swing phases. Conclusion: This study found that there was no concordance between PE and CGA. Therefore, these tests are complementary and provide information for a differential approach in clinical decision-making. © 2017 Elsevier España, S.L.U. y SERMEF |
---|