Background: Muscle weakness is characteristic of knee osteoarthritis. Muscle steadiness may be an important adjunct to knee muscle strength in improving physical function in knee osteoarthritis. However, the role of muscle steadiness is uncertain. Aims: To determine the associations of knee extensor muscle steadiness with maximal voluntary torque and physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Methods: Baseline data from 177 patients in a randomized clinical trial were used. Isokinetic knee extension torque was processed into maximal voluntary torque [Nm]. Muscle steadiness was expressed as the coefficient of variance [%] and as peak power frequency [Hz]. Physical function was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the Get-Up-and-Go and Stair-climb tests. Associations were determined using regression analyses and adjusted for confounders. Findings: Lower muscle steadiness (i.e., higher coefficient of variance and peak power frequency) was associated with lower maximal voluntary torque (B = − 7.38, [−10.8, −3.95], R² = 0.10 and B = −14.71, [−28.29, −1.13], R² = 0.03, respectively). Higher coefficient of variance was associated with lower self-reported physical function (B = 1.14, [0.11,2.17], R² = 0.03) and remained significant after adjusting for potential confounders. Peak power frequency was not associated with physical function. Interpretation: Low muscle steadiness was weakly associated with low muscle strength and poorer self-reported physical function. Muscle steadiness and muscle strength seem to be different attributes of muscle function. There is no convincing evidence that muscle steadiness is an important adjunct in studying physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Background: Patients with knee osteoarthritis can adapt their gait to unload the most painful knee joint in order to try to reduce pain and improve physical function. However, these gait adaptations can cause higher loads on the contralateral joints. The aim of the study was to investigate the interlimb differences in knee and hip frontal plane moments during gait in patients with knee osteoarthritis and in healthy controls. Methods: Forty patients with knee osteoarthritis and 19 healthy matched controls were measured during comfortable treadmill walking. Frontal plane joint moments were obtained of both hip and knee joints. Differences in interlimb moments within each group were assessed using statistical parametric mapping and discrete gait parameters. Findings: No interlimb differences were observed in patients with knee osteoarthritis and control subjects at group level. Furthermore, the patients presented similar interlimb variability as the controls. In a small subgroup (n = 12) of patients, the moments in the most painful knee were lower than in the contralateral knee, while the other patients (n = 28) showed higher moments in the most painful knee compared to the contralateral knee. However, no interlimb differences in the hip moments were observed within the subgroups. Interpretation: Patients with knee osteoarthritis do not have interlimb differences in knee and hip joint moments. Patients and healthy subjects demonstrate a similar interlimb variability in the moments of the lower extremities. In this context, differences in knee pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis did not induce any interlimb differences in the frontal plane knee and hip moments.

Background: Gait analysis has been used for decades to quantify knee function in patients with knee osteoarthritis; however, it is unknown whether and to what extent inter-laboratory differences affect the comparison of gait data between studies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perform an inter-laboratory comparison of knee biomechanics and muscle activation patterns during gait of patients with knee osteoarthritis. Methods: Knee biomechanics and muscle activation patterns from patients with knee osteoarthritis were analyzed, previously collected at Dalhousie University (DAL: n = 55) and Amsterdam UMC, VU medical center (VUmc: n = 39), using their in-house protocols. Additionally, one healthy male was measured at both locations. Both direct comparisons and after harmonization of components of the protocols were made. Inter-laboratory comparisons were quantified using statistical parametric mapping analysis and discrete gait parameters. Results: The inter-laboratory comparison showed offsets in the sagittal plane angles, moments and frontal plane angles, and phase shifts in the muscle activation patterns. Filter characteristics, initial contact identification and thigh anatomical frame definitions were harmonized between the laboratories. After this first step in protocol harmonization, the offsets in knee angles and sagittal plane moments remained, but the inter-laboratory comparison of the muscle activation patterns improved. Conclusions: Inter-laboratory differences obstruct valid comparisons of gait datasets from patients with knee osteoarthritis between gait laboratories. A first step in harmonization of gait analysis protocols improved the inter-laboratory comparison. Further protocol harmonization is recommended to enable valid comparisons between labs, data-sharing and multicenter trials to investigate knee function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Knee joint instability is frequently reported by patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Objective metrics to assess knee joint instability are lacking, making it difficult to target therapies aiming to improve stability. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare responses in neuromechanics to perturbations during gait in patients with self-reported knee joint instability (KOA-I) versus patients reporting stable knees (KOA-S) and healthy control subjects. Forty patients (20 KOA-I and 20 KOA-S) and 20 healthy controls were measured during perturbed treadmill walking. Knee joint angles and muscle activation patterns were compared using statistical parametric mapping and discrete gait parameters. Furthermore, subgroups (moderate versus severe KOA) based on Kellgren and Lawrence classification were evaluated. Patients with KOA-I generally had greater knee flexion angles compared to controls during terminal stance and during swing of perturbed gait. In response to deceleration perturbations the patients with moderate KOA-I increased their knee flexion angles during terminal stance and pre-swing. Knee muscle activation patterns were overall similar between the groups. In response to sway medial perturbations the patients with severe KOA-I increased the co-contraction of the quadriceps versus hamstrings muscles during terminal stance. Patients with KOA-I respond to different gait perturbations by increasing knee flexion angles, co-contraction of muscles or both during terminal stance. These alterations in neuromechanics could assist in the assessment of knee joint instability in patients, to provide treatment options accordingly. Furthermore, longitudinal studies are needed to investigate the consequences of altered neuromechanics due to knee joint instability on the development of KOA.

Purpose: To compare the responses in knee joint muscle activation patterns to different perturbations during gait in healthy subjects. Scope: Nine healthy participants were subjected to perturbed walking on a split-belt treadmill. Four perturbation types were applied, each at five intensities. The activations of seven muscles surrounding the knee were measured using surface EMG. The responses in muscle activation were expressed by calculating mean, peak, co-contraction (CCI) and perturbation responses (PR) values. PR captures the responses relative to unperturbed gait. Statistical parametric mapping analysis was used to compare the muscle activation patterns between conditions. Results: Perturbations evoked only small responses in muscle activation, though higher perturbation intensities yielded a higher mean activation in five muscles, as well as higher PR. Different types of perturbation led to different responses in the rectus femoris, medial gastrocnemius and lateral gastrocnemius. The participants had lower CCI just before perturbation compared to the same phase of unperturbed gait. Conclusions: Healthy participants respond to different perturbations during gait with small adaptations in their knee joint muscle activation patterns. This study provides insights in how the muscles are activated to stabilize the knee when challenged. Furthermore it could guide future studies in determining aberrant muscle activation in patients with knee disorders.

Objective: To evaluate whether improvement of proprioception, pain, or dynamic knee instability mediates the effect of wearing a soft knee brace on activity limitations in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: We conducted an analysis of data for 44 patients with knee OA who were enrolled in a laboratory-based trial evaluating the effect of wearing a commercially available soft knee brace. Activity limitations were assessed with the 10-meter walk test and the Get Up and Go test. Knee joint proprioception was assessed by an active joint position sense test; pain was assessed on a numeric rating scale (NRS) (range 0–10); pressure pain threshold (PPT) was assessed with a hand-held pressure algometer; dynamic knee instability was expressed by the perturbation response, i.e., a measure reflecting a deviation in mean knee varus–valgus angle after a controlled mechanical perturbation on a treadmill, with respect to level walking. Mediation analysis was conducted using the product of coefficients approach. Confidence intervals were calculated with a bootstrap procedure. Results: A decrease in pain (scored on an NRS) and a decrease in dynamic knee instability mediated the effect of wearing a soft knee brace on the reduction of activity limitations (P < 0.05), while changes in proprioception and PPT did not mediate this effect (P > 0.05). Conclusion: This study shows that decreased pain and reduced dynamic knee instability are pathways by which wearing a soft knee brace decreases activity limitations in patients with knee OA.

Background: Instability of the knee joint during gait is frequently reported by patients with knee osteoarthritis or an anterior cruciate ligament rupture. The assessment of instability in clinical practice and clinical research studies mainly relies on self-reporting. Alternatively, parameters measured with gait analysis have been explored as suitable objective indicators of dynamic knee (in)stability. Research question: This literature review aimed to establish an inventory of objective parameters of knee stability during gait. Methods: Five electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Cinahl and SPORTDiscuss) were systematically searched, with keywords concerning knee, stability and gait. Eligible studies used an objective parameter(s) to assess knee (in)stability during gait, being stated in the introduction or methods section. Out of 10717 studies, 89 studies were considered eligible. Results: Fourteen different patient populations were investigated with kinematic, kinetic and/or electromyography measurements during (challenged) gait. Thirty-three possible objective parameters were identified for knee stability, of which the majority was based on kinematic (14 parameters) or electromyography (12 parameters) measurements. Thirty-nine studies used challenged gait (i.e. external perturbations, downhill walking) to provoke knee joint instability. Limited or conflicting results were reported on the validity of the 33 parameters. Significance: In conclusion, a large number of different candidates for an objective knee stability gait parameter were found in literature, all without compelling evidence. A clear conceptual definition for dynamic knee joint stability is lacking, for which we suggest : “The capacity to respond to a challenge during gait within the natural boundaries of the knee”. Furthermore biomechanical gait laboratory protocols should be harmonized, to enable future developments on clinically relevant measure(s) of knee stability during gait.

Objectives Wearing a soft knee brace has been shown to reduce self-reported knee instability in persons with knee OA. There is a need to assess whether a soft knee brace has a beneficial effect on objectively assessed dynamic knee instability as well. The aims of the study were to evaluate the effect of a soft knee brace on objectively assessed dynamic knee instability and to assess the difference in effect between a non-tight and a tight soft knee brace in persons with knee OA. Methods Thirty-eight persons with knee OA and self-reported knee instability participated in a laboratory study. A within-subject design was used comparing no brace vs brace and comparing a non-tight vs a tight brace. The primary outcome measure was dynamic knee instability, expressed by the perturbation response (PR). The PR reflects deviation in the mean knee varus-valgus angle during level walking after a controlled mechanical perturbation. Linear mixed-effect model analysis was used to evaluate the effect of a brace on dynamic knee instability. Results Wearing a brace significantly reduced the PR compared with not wearing a brace (B = -0.16, P = 0.01). There was no difference between a non-tight and a tight brace (B = -0.03, P = 0.60). Conclusion This study is the first to report that wearing a soft knee brace reduces objectively assessed dynamic knee instability in persons with knee OA. Wearing a soft brace results in an objective improvement of knee instability beyond subjectively reported improvement. Trial registration Nederlands Trial register (trialregister.nl) NTR6363

The objective of this study was to investigate the learning process of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) patients learning to change their foot progression angle (FPA) over a six-week toe-in gait training program. Sixteen patients with medial KOA completed a six-week toe-in gait training program with real-time biofeedback. Patients walked on an instrumented treadmill while receiving real-time feedback on their foot progression angle (FPA) with reference to a target angle. The FPA difference (difference between target and actual FPA) was analyzed during i) natural walking, ii) walking with feedback, iii) walking without feedback and iv) walking with a dual-task at the start and end of the training program. Self-reported difficulty and abnormality and time spent walking and training were also analyzed. The FPA difference during natural walking was significantly decreased from median 6.9 to median 3.6° i.e. by 3.3° in week six (p < 0.001); adding feedback reduced FPA difference to almost zero. However the dual-task condition increased the FPA difference at week one compared to the feedback condition (median difference: 1.8°, p = 0.022), but after training this effect was minimized (median difference: 0.6°, p = 0.167). Self-reported abnormality and difficulty decreased from median 5 to 3 and from median 6 to 3 on the NRS respectively (p < 0.05). Patients with medial KOA could reduce the FPA difference during natural walking after the gait retraining program, with some evidence of a reduction in the cognitive demand needed to achieve this. Automation of adaptions might need support from more permanent feedback using wearable technologies.

Background: Gait modifications can reduce the knee adduction moment, a representation of knee loading. Reduced loading may help to slow progression of medial knee osteoarthritis. We aimed to investigate the response of patients with medial knee osteoarthritis to direct feedback on the knee adduction moment as a method for modifying the gait pattern, before and after training with specific gait modifications. Methods: Forty patients with medial knee osteoarthritis underwent 3D gait analysis on an instrumented-treadmill, while receiving real-time feedback on the peak knee adduction moment. Patients were trained with three different modifications; toe-in, wider steps and medial thrust gait. The response to real-time feedback on the knee adduction moment was measured before and after training. To evaluate the short term retention effect, we measured the changes without feedback. We also evaluated the effects on the knee flexion moment and at the hip and ankle joints. Findings: With direct feedback on the knee adduction moment, patients were initially unable to reduce the knee adduction moment. After training with specific modifications, peak knee adduction moment was reduced by 14% in response to direct feedback. Without feedback a 9% reduction in peak knee adduction moment was maintained. Hip moments were not increased with modified gait, but small increases in ankle adduction moment and knee flexion moment were observed. Interpretation: Real-time biofeedback directly on the knee adduction moment is a promising option for encouraging gait modifications to reduce knee loading, however only when combined with specific instructions on how to modify the gait.

Background: We aimed to (i) evaluate the immediate effect of a soft knee brace on pain, activity limitations, self-reported knee instability, and self-reported knee confidence, and (ii) to assess the difference in effect between a non-tight and a tight soft brace in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Forty-four patients with knee OA and self-reported knee instability participated in the single-session, laboratory, experimental study. A within-subject design was used, comparing a soft brace with no brace, and comparing a non-tight with a tight soft brace. The outcome measures were pain, self-reported knee instability and knee confidence during level and perturbed walking on the treadmill and activity limitations (10-m walk test and the get up and go (GUG) test). Linear mixed-effect model analysis for continuous outcomes and logistic generalized estimating equations for categorical outcomes were used to evaluate the effect of wearing a soft brace. Results: Wearing a soft brace significantly reduced pain during level walking (B - 0.60, P = 0.001) and perturbed walking (B - 0.80, P < 0.001), reduced the time to complete the 10-m walk (B - 0.23, P < 0.001) and the GUG tests (B - 0.23, P = 0.004), reduced self-reported knee instability during level walking (OR 0.41, P = 0.002) and perturbed walking (OR 0.36, P < 0.001), and reduced lack of confidence in the knees during level walking (OR 0.45, P < 0.001) and perturbed walking (OR 0.56, P < 0.001), compared with not wearing a soft brace. There was no difference in effects between a non-tight and tight brace, except for the 10-m walk test. Wearing a tight brace significantly reduced the time to complete the 10-m walk test in comparison with wearing a non-tight brace (B - 0.11, P = 0.03). Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that a soft brace is an efficacious intervention targeting pain, activity limitations, self-reported knee instability, and knee confidence in the immediate term in patients with knee OA. Further studies are needed evaluating the mode of action based on exerted pressure, and on the generalization to functioning in daily life. Trial registration: trialregister.nl, NTR6363. Retrospectively registered on 15 May 2017.