Printer Friendly

Pilot study of the impact that bilateral sacroiliac joint manipulation using a drop table technique has on gait parameters in asymptomatic individuals with a leg length inequality.

Introduction

Two types of leg length inequality (LLI) exist, anatomical and functional LLI. (1,2) It has been suggested that a consequence of possessing a short lower limb is that it places abnormal mechanical stress on both lower limbs. (1-3) The longer limb may develop greater foot pronation, and the shorter limb may be predisposed to degenerative joint changes. (2,3)

An anatomically short lower limb occurs when someone is born or in some way develops a lower limb weight-bearing bone that is smaller than its contralateral counter-part. (2) This can occur when individuals are born with a shorter than normal femur or tibia.

A consequence of an anatomically short lower limb is that the pelvis will undergo torsion to biomechanically adapt. (1) Depending on the degree of short LLI back pain, knee pain, lower limb stress fractures, and increased rates of lower limb osteoarthritis have been reported. (1,4-9) If a LLI is untreated the body quite obviously would have to adapt to the difference in limb length and that could lead to the development of a functional adaptive scoliosis. (1)

Another form of LLI is a functional LLI. This form of short lower limb is believed to be due to malposition of one or both innominate bones in relation to the sacrum, resulting in a limb that is shorter than normal. (10) One theoretical mechanism for this occurring is greater than normal suprapelvic muscle hypertonicity which leads to an alteration in pelvic rotation. (10-13) Pelvic girdle malposition like this is thought to occur when one innominate bone rotates anteriorly or posteriorly, resulting in the development of a functional LLI. (10)

The long-term consequence of a functionally short lower limb is not clearly known. (10) Theoretically, individuals with a significant functional LLI could experience similar symptoms as a person with an anatomical LLI.

A literature review using PubMed, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and Alt Health Watch databases using keywords "chiropractic", "biomechanics", and "gait" yielded only two applicable gait-related chiropractic manipulative therapy (CMT) articles. Sandell et al. (14) found that following CMT to the sacroiliac (SI) joint runners improved their hip extension capabilities. This interesting change, however, did not materialize into any improvement in running velocity post-CMT on a 30-meter sprint (p=0.572). (14) Herzog, in his CMT gait biomechanics article described how corrective SI joint CMT resulted in increased gait support time and improved gait symmetry based on ground reaction force analysis over the course of a multi-week study. (15) These findings add credibility to the belief that SI joint CMT may marginally alter the biomechanics of the lower limbs. Due to the limited research in this field more studies are warranted, particularly studies utilizing state-of-the-art motion analysis technology.

Chiropractors treat patients with functional LLI. (16-18) The impact that SI joint CMT has on gait kinematics should be studied further to help chiropractors better understand how they may impact gait when treating patients with LLI. The overall purpose of this study was to pilot test a protocol that will be the basis for a series of larger studies aimed at measuring the impact of bilateral SI joint manipulation on gait parameters in asymptomatic individuals with a LLI. In the current study, our specific aims were to: 1) determine the feasibility of administering advanced motion analysis technology in a chiropractic research setting; and 2) generate point and range estimates to inform sample size estimates for a larger study of the potential effect of SI joint manipulation on improvement of gait symmetry.

Methods

This study received ethics approval from the Texas Chiropractic College (TCC) Human Subjects Committee.

Study Design and Setting

This was a single-blind, randomized, controlled pilot study of the immediate impact that SI joint CMT had on walking kinematics in asymptomatic individuals with a LLI.

As shown in Figures 1 and 2, participants initially engaged in a 90-second baseline gait analysis utilizing a Vicon[R] infrared camera imaging system (Vicon, Centennial, CO, USA). Next, they underwent a prone heel comparison test to observe for a functionally short lower limb (Fig. 3). Study participants who possessed a short lower limb were then randomized into two groups: 1) Posterior Superior Iliac Spine (PSIS) CMT to the short leg side and ischial tuberosity CMT to the long leg side, or 2) no CMT. Next study participants underwent another 90-second gait trial. At the conclusion of that time the following five study subgroups existed: left short leg-manipulation (LSLM), left short leg-no manipulation (LSLN), right short leg-manipulation (RSLM), right short leg-no manipulation (RSLN), or no short leg (NSL) (Table 1). The LSLN, RSLN, and NSL groups were intended to serve as controls for comparison purposes.

Participants

Asymptomatic student volunteers were recruited with on-campus flyers and via word-of-mouth. All study applicants provided an informed written consent on college-approved documents. They were then screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Those that met inclusion/ exclusion criteria attended a single twenty-minute visit specifically for the study. Participants were given a study preparation handout of the exclusion criteria and were reminded to avoid consuming caffeine, alcohol and receiving CMT during the day of study participation.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria were: 1) completion of TCC student physical examination and absence of self-reported contraindications to SI joint CMT; 2) age 18-45 years; 3) a "no" response to all exercise contraindication sections on a Physical Activity Readiness-Questionnaire (PAR-Q); 4) no engagement in strenuous exercise on the day of the study; and 5) willingness to provide informed written consent. Study participants with any of the following criteria were excluded from the study: 1) diagnosis of any lumbar, sacral, hip, or lower limb pathology that would prevent them from walking; 2) severe neurological conditions which would impact gait (e.g., type II diabetes, Parkinson's disease, traumatic brain injury, dementia, stroke, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, Huntington's disease, etc.); 3) a history of alcohol abuse; 4) any health condition that would impair their ability to walk up to 3 mph; 5) visual impairment that would render walking on a treadmill dangerous; 6) hypertonia; 7) reliance on a cane or similar assistive walking device; 8) taking medications that could alter motor function (e.g., acetylcholine-esterase inhibitors, L-dopa agonists, dopa-antagonists, or neuroleptics); 9) botulinum injection in their lower limb muscles within the past six months; 10) presence of severe pain in their lower limbs of greater intensity than 3 on a 10 cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS); 11) vertigo or history of falls within the past 60 days; or 12) any prior bone or muscle-related surgeries.

Baseline Preparation and Kinematic Recording

Participants were all given a verbal description of the walking study and LLI analysis prior to testing to reduce anxiety during the test. Upon arrival to the session they changed into standardized black spandex shorts and dark shoes. All males wore new MX409 New Balance[R] shoes and Women wore new WL574 New Balance[R] shoes (New Balance, Brighton, MA, USA). Any reflective logos on the shoes were spray-painted with non-reflective paint. Prior to this study researchers purchased five pairs of male (sizes 8-12) and female (sizes 5-9) shoes in common sizes. Standardized shoes were chosen as opposed to having participants walk barefoot to most closely emulate a real-world scenario. Next, trained research assistants placed 18 silver reflective markers on the participant's lower body using double-sided marker fixing tape and surgical tape. Reflective markers were placed on the following anatomic landmarks during this study bilaterally: ASIS, PSIS, greater trochanter, lateral epicondyle of the femur, tibial tuberosity, lateral malleolus, posterior calcaneus, top of the fifth metatarsal head, and top of the first metatarsal head (Fig. 2). Sixteen of the MoCap solutions reflective markers were 19 mm (MoCap solutions, Huntington Beach, CA, USA). The two PSIS markers used in this study were slightly smaller, at 14 mm. This was done in an attempt to gain better resolution by reducing the likelihood that those markers would be merged together by the Vicon[R] cameras considering how close the PSISs were on smaller participants with narrow hips.

Prior to a participant arriving at the lab each day the Vicon[R] system was calibrated as suggested by the manufacturer. Once the participant was dressed properly and all of the reflective markers were in place they stood on top of the 400 Pro series Keys[R] treadmill (Keys Fitness Products, Inc., Dallas, TX, USA) for their baseline 10-second model generation. Next the participant was instructed that they would be walking as they normally would at a velocity of 1.5 mph. A research assistant started the treadmill at the same time as another researcher began recording data with the Vicon[R] system. The lab's Vicon[R] MX system consisted of 8 infrared Bonita 0.3 megapixel cameras. Kinematic data was recorded at 100 Hz. The displacement of the 18 reflective markers over time was recorded. At the conclusion of 100 seconds the researcher operating the Vicon[R] computer stopped the recording and then the treadmill was stopped. The study participant was not given any indication of when the treadmill would be stopped prior to the examiner finishing his computer data recording. Immediately after the 100 second recording was made the initial 10 seconds was clipped from the data to remove any initial steps as the participant became acclimated to the treadmill upon beginning the test. Following the baseline 90 seconds of data collection the participant then carefully stepped off of the treadmill. After this the research assistants removed the participant's shoes for them. They then removed the reflective markers on the two tibial tuberosity and two ASIS points. Prior to removing those four reflective markers the research assistants made circular pen tracings around the markers on the participant's skin. This was done in an attempt to leave a guide which would aid in placing the markers back as closely as possible where they were for the 90-second post-kinematic analysis.

LLI assessment

Study participants positioned themselves prone on a drop table with their shoes off. During positioning for the LLI test, an effort was made to ensure the participant's whole body was in a neutral position on the table without spinal or pelvic frontal plane distortion. The treating doctor then held the participant's ankles in a neutral position to prevent foot inversion or eversion. The leg length was visualized by comparing the inferior aspect of both compressed heels exclusively (Fig. 3). This technique was chosen as a previous study suggested that this form of LLI measurement demonstrated better inter-examiner reliability, (19) although LLI tests in general do not have particularly high inter-rater reliability. (20-23) If the examining chiropractor found that the participant did have a LLI the Primary Investigator (PI) would inform him based on the pre-generated randomization list if the participant was to be manipulated or not. Admittedly, the pre-generated randomization sequence was not concealed from the PI, however only two potential subjects were actively excluded by the PI. All other potential subjects were included and randomized strictly on a first-come, first-serve basis. No attempt to measure an exact LLI distance was made. If SI joint CMT was to be performed the short lower limb PSIS marker was also removed after a pen tracing was made around it on the participant's skin. Following the intervention, or lack thereof, the study participant carefully stood up. The treating chiropractor made no attempt to re-check the LLI manually post-CMT to confirm that a change was induced. Next the research assistants placed all of the reflective markers back where they were (the two tibial tuberosity markers, two ASIS markers, and one PSIS marker) and put the participant's standardized shoes back on them. After the intervention phase of the study the participants walked again for their post-kinematic analysis.

Randomization and blinding

Participants were subdivided into the three following groups based on the LLI test: left short leg, right short leg, and no short leg (as shown in Fig. 1). A computer-generated randomized intervention list was created before the study began. That list determined if a participant with a short lower limb would undergo CMT or not. The doctor performing the SI joint CMT was aware of which group the study participant belonged to. The researcher who analyzed the motion capture data was blinded as to group designation. He was only told that he would be provided with walking data from five distinct study groups and that he needed to determine gait kinematics and if any statistically significant differences existed within groups in terms of their pre versus post gait data.

Intervention

The intervention phase of the study was performed by a chiropractor with 35 years of experience. The intervention involved either: 1) a hypothenar ilium apex push to the PSIS on the short leg side (24) in an attempt to rotate the superior ilium anteriorly to elongate that lower limb and a hypothenar ischial tuberosity push on the long leg side, or 2) no manipulation. Bilateral SI joint CMT was chosen over unilateral short leg PSIS manipulation based on preliminary data by our lab on the lack of effectiveness of unilateral corrective CMT to improve gait symmetry of our student participants (unpublished data). All CMT consisted of a high-velocity low-amplitude force delivered three times in a row using a drop table (Ergostyle 2000, Chattanooga Group Inc., Hixson, TX, USA). The intent of the drop table was to try to keep the amount of force reasonably standardized. This prone form of CMT was selected to decrease the likelihood of making researchers remove more reflective surface markers than the five that were absolutely necessary to remove. One minute after receiving SI joint CMT or no CMT the study participant engaged in their walking post-kinematic analysis.

Kinematic Post-data Processing

The data was processed using a customized Matlab script (Mathworks, USA R2007a). The kinematic data was analyzed to calculate characteristics of movement for each participant. Data for the dependent variables was averaged for each participant over all of their strides within each gait trial. In the current study we investigated the changes in the functional active range of motion (in the sagittal plane) of the hip angle, knee angle, and ankle angle as a result of the intervention. This was performed by subtracting the minimum joint angle from the maximum joint angle for each of the aforementioned joints. In addition, the double support time, percent double support time (duration both feet were on the ground in relation to the gait cycle), stance time, percent stance time (duration one foot was on the ground in relation to the gait cycle), step length, and stride length bilaterally were calculated.

Approximate Entropy, a measure of gait variability, was additionally determined for each joint. In healthy individuals there is a certain amount of acceptable variability that represents a normal (healthy) gait pattern. However, highly variable gait patterns are typically indicative of some type of pathology or loss of coordination, (25) which may render a person at risk for falling. (26) Gait variability has been identified by the application of a mathematical technique called approximate entropy (ApnEn) that may reveal small changes in the gait pattern. (25,27,28) Values near "0" represent a stable gait, while values near "2" represent a very unstable gait.

Statistical Analysis

Data was analyzed in SPSS version 19 (Release Version 19.0.1). Pre- and post-intervention gait parameter measurements were summarized as mean [+ or -] standard deviations (SD) unless otherwise specified. Parametric within-groups, dependent variables were compared using a paired-samples t-test. Since we intended to utilize a series of t-tests we engaged in a Bonferroni adjustment to avoid type I statistical error. As a result, the alpha level of p [less than or equal to] 0.002 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. For data analysis purposes both short leg groups had their data merged into one group based on ipsilateral short leg effects (e.g., the R lower limb data for the RSLM group and L lower limb data for the LSLM group) and contralateral long leg effects (e.g., the L lower limb data for the RSLM group and R lower limb data for the LSLM group) pre- and post-intervention. Similarly, the RSLN and LSLN groups had their data merged for comparison purposes. The NSL group had its bilateral data values averaged together.

Results

This study involved twenty-one chiropractic college participants. Just over half of our participants were female (n = 12). The mean age was = 27.2 (sd = 5.1) years, mean height was = 1.72 (sd = 0.07) m, and mean body mass was = 76.6 (sd = 18.2) kg. Only two interested subjects were excluded from this study based on exclusion criteria (one with a history of lower limb surgery, another due to existing foot drop). CMT to the SI joint resulted in no statistically significant change in functional active range of motion and other parameters of gait (Table 2a-2c). This, however, was a pilot study with only twenty-one participants and did not follow a power analysis. Few attributes in this study even approached statistical significance when adjusted for multiple comparisons. However, from an exploratory analysis perspective, the change in pre ipsilateral lower limb % stance time was significant at an unadjusted alpha level (p = 0.031) for RSLM. In the RSLN and LSLN, our analysis demonstrated a change in the knee joint angle on the long limb side of almost 1[degrees] (p = 0.011) and an increase in percentage of stance time by 0.4% (p = 0.010) on the short limb side. This, along with the normal gait data demonstrated in Table 2c illustrates the amount of variability in gait without CMT. Additionally, there was no discernible pattern changes in the RSLM and LSLM groups.

Discussion

The changes in walking kinematics in response to CMT in this pilot study were small. This study intentionally was a pilot study with a small sample size within each group. Subsequent larger studies should follow a power analysis. Using G*Power version 3.1.3 (Universitat Kiel, Germany) (29,30) we determined post-hoc that future studies should have 34 participants per study group to compare 2 groups (experimental and control). This analysis was in accordance with a desired f effect size of 0.5, [alpha] of 0.05, and power of 0.8 through a 2-group ANOVA using [stride length] as the primary outcome of interest. We do feel that we would be capable of recruiting this number of student participants with future studies if we merge right and left short leg group data together (e.g., RSLM and LSLM into one group). Our rate of eligibility for this study was 91.3% out of all applicants from our college. Recruiting outside non-student participants (general public) would also be possible as an alternative, but that would require further resources. Additionally, a future definitive study could involve randomizing NSL participants to manipulation or no manipulation groups in order to constitute an additional comparison group.

Our eight camera Vicon[R] motion analysis system worked consistently in our study. No participants were injured at any point. For safety reasons following the completion of this experiment we have installed thin side rails on the treadmill that provide a safety bar participants can grab onto in case they lose their balance on the treadmill. We are also in the process of installing an overhead safety harness system to prevent falling.

Our method of using a blinded biomechanist appeared to be effective in this pilot study. One issue we did have was the transport of the large kinematic data files we were generating (approximately 82 MB per participant). As a result, it took our offsite biomechanist many hours to transfer all of the files from our lab computer to his computer for analysis using a trial version of TeamViewer 8 [R] software (TeamViewer Inc., Tampa, FL). For future studies we will need to purchase a more robust file transfer system to handle transferring large quantities of data.

Manual determination of LLI by chiropractors is occasionally performed, but it has not been shown to be as accurate as more expensive imaging methods. (8,19) When choosing an ideal method of measuring LLI we, similar to field practitioners, had to consider reliability, accuracy, magnification, radiation dose, cost, need for special equipment, convenience, and the opportunity to image an entire extremity. (9) In our study design we opted to utilize a technique that we theorized would be more common amongst chiropractic general practitioners. Our original hypothesis was that we expected participants with a LLI to have a slightly asymmetric gait. Then after corrective SI joint CMT we hypothesized that the participant's gait would be more symmetrical. This belief did not materialize.

The experience we gained through this pilot study was invaluable for the generation of subsequent larger studies following a power analysis. If SI joint CMT improves gait symmetry that may directly have implications on balance while walking. Further study to determine the true physiological impact of SI joint manipulation on gait is required.

The main intent of this study was to determine if our design would be feasible to engage in a series of larger studies using advanced motion analysis technology. This was shown to be possible. This lab now intends to develop the three following walking studies involving SI joint CMT over the course of September 2012-September 2015 using large study groups: 1) normative data with a combination of healthy non-chiropractic student participants (mainstream public) versus chiropractic students, 2) adult SI joint pain patient data (mainstream public), and 3) geriatric at-risk-for-fall data.

As this field is developed further additional directions that should be explored would be running kinematic changes in response to SI joint and/or lumbar spine CMT and changes in gait that may be induced in ataxic special populations. Also surface EMG should be used to explore if any changes found in gait are induced by alterations in motor recruitment patterns of the lower limb muscles in response to CMT.

Limitations

This study only informs us as to the potential immediate impact SI joint CMT may have on specific gait parameters in young, asymptomatic individuals. It is possible that a CMT dose-response relationship may exist related to improvements in gait performance, similar to what Herzog discovered. (15)

One issue this study must accept is the limitation on external validity. The population we sampled was composed of chiropractic students who regularly receive CMT. It is possible that the general public may react differently than individuals who receive CMT often.

Another issue this study faced is that LLI tests do not have high levels of validity and reliability. (13,19,20-24) In our study design we opted to use a test that was a modified form of a Derifield Pelvic Leg Check LLI test that only involved comparison of heel length. It is possible that our test was not ideal since a reliable and valid test does not clearly exist. No X-ray or similar imaging lower limb procedure was used to ensure that participants truly had a functionally short lower limb and not an anatomically short lower limb. (2,31-35) Despite this, the primary goal of this study was to observe raw marginal change in kinematics pre versus post SI joint CMT (e.g., can SI joint CMT truly induce a subtle change in gait kinematics or not).

Conclusions

There is minimal research into how spinal manipulation may augment gait. The focus of this experiment was to determine if developing a series of larger SI joint CMT biomechanics studies using motion analysis technology was possible through our study design. The findings of our study suggest larger studies are feasible and we will proceed accordingly.

Funding sources and potential conflicts of interest

This study was supported by a grant from Dr. S. M. Elliot, TCC President Emeritus. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments: This study was supported with an internal grant from TCC

References

(1.) Knutson G. Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: a review and recommendation for clinical decisionmaking. Part I, anatomic leg-length inequality: prevalence, magnitude, effects and clinical significance. Chiropr Osteop. 2005;13:11.

(2.) McCaw S, Bates B. Biomechanical implications of mild leg length inequality. Br J Sp Med. 1991;25(1):10-3.

(3.) Langer S. Structural leg shortage: a case report. I Am Podiatry Assoc. 1976;66:38-40.

(4.) Friberg O. Clinical symptoms and biomechanics of lumbar spine and hip joint in leg length inequality. Spine. 1983;8(6):643-51.

(5.) Sabharwal S, Kumar A. Methods for assessing leg length discrepancy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2910-22.

(6.) Golightly Y, Allen K, Helmick C, Renner J, Salazar A, Jordan J. Relationship of limb length inequality with radiographic knee and hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15(7):824-9.

(7.) Harvey W, Yang M, Cooke T, Segal N, Lane N, Lewis C, Felson D. Associations of leg length inequality with prevalent, incident, and progressive knee osteoarthritis: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(5):287-95.

(8.) Anderson R, Hayak R, Foggerty M. Leg length inequality and the side of low back pain. Comsig Review. 1995;4(2):33-6.

(9.) Reid D, Smith B. Leg length inequality: a review of etiology and management. Physio Can. 1984;36:177-82.

(10.) Knutson G. Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: a review and recommendation for clinical decision-making. Part II, the functional or unloaded leg-length asymmetry. Chiropr Osteop. 2005;13:12.

(11.) Cooperstein R, Lisi A. Pelvic torsion: anatomic considerations, construct validity, and chiropractic examination procedures. Top Clin Chiro. 2000;7(3):38-49.

(12.) Giles L, Taylor J. Lumbar spine structural changes associated with leg length inequality. Spine. 1982;7(2):159-62.

(13.) Mannello D. Leg Length Inequality. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992;15(9):576-90.

(14.) Sandell J, Palmgren P, Bjorndahl L. Effect of chiropractic treatment of hip extension ability and running velocity among young male running athletes. JCM. 2008;7:39-47.

(15.) Herzog W. Biomechanical studies of spinal manipulative therapy. JCCA. 1991;91:156-64.

(16.) Haas M, Peterson D, Panzer D, Rothman E, Solomon S, Krein R, Johansen R. Reactivity of leg alignment to articular pressure testing: evaluation of a diagnostic test using a randomized crossover clinical trial approach. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1993;16(4):220-7.

(17.) Nguyen H, Resnick D, Caldwell S, Elston E, Bishop B, Steinhouser J, et al. Interexaminer reliability of activator methods relative leg-length evaluation in the prone extended position. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999;22(9):565-9.

(18.) Thompson J. Thompson technique reference manual, Elgin, IL 1984. Thompson Educational Workshops SM and Williams Manufacturing.

(19.) Walker B, Buchbinder R. Most commonly used methods of detecting subluxation and the preferred term for its description: a survey of chiropractors in Victoria, Australia. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1997;20(9):583-8.

(20.) Fuhr A, Osterbauer P. Interexaminer reliability of relative leg-length evaluations in the prone, extended position. Chiropractic Technique. 1989;1(1):13-8.

(21.) Haas M, Peterson D. Interexaminer reliability of relative leg-length evaluations in the prone, extended position [letter, comment]. Chiropractic Technique. 1989;1(4):150-1.

(22.) DeBoer K, Harmon R, Savoie S, Tuttle C. Inter- and intra-examiner reliability of the leg-length differential measurement: a preliminary study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1983;10(3):61-6.

(23.) Danelius D. Letter to the editor: inter- and intra-examiner reliability of leg-length measurement: a preliminary study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1987;10(3):132.

(24.) Bergmann T, Peterson D. Chiropractic Technique: principles and procedures. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2011.

(25.) Myers S, Stergiou N, Pipinos I, Johanning J. Gait variability patterns are altered in healthy young individuals during the acute reperfusion phase of ischemia-reperfusion. J Surg Res. 2010;164(1):6-12.

(26.) Maki B. Gait changes in older adults: predictors of falls or indicators of fear. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45(3):313-20.

(27.) Buzzi U, Stergiou N, Kurz M, Hageman P, Heidel J. Nonlinear dynamics indicates aging affects variability during gait. Clin Biomech. 2003;18:435-43.

(28.) Pincus S. Approximate entropy as a measure of system complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1991;88:2297-301.

(29.) Buchner A, Erdfelder E, Faul F. (1997). How to Use G*Power [WWW document]. URL http://www.psycho. uni-duesseldorf.de/aap/projects/gpower/how_to_use_ gpower.html.

(30.) Erdfelder E, Faul F, Buchner A. GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behav Res Meth Ins. 1996;28:1-11.

(31.) Clarke G. Unequal leg length: an accurate method of detection and some clinical results. Rheum Phys Med. 1972;11:385-90.

(32.) Beal M. The short leg problem. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1977;76:745-51.

(33.) Gofton J, Trueman G. Studies in osteoarthritis of the hip. Part II: Osteoarthritis of the hip and leg-length inequality. Can Med Assoc J. 1971;104:791-9.

(34.) Friberg 0, Koivisto E, Wegelius C. A radiographic method for measurement of leg length inequality. Diagn Imag Clin Med. 1985;54:54-81.

(35.) Fisk J, Baigent M. Clinical and radiological assessment of leg length. NZ Med J. 1975;8:477-80.

John Ward, DC, MA, MS [1] Ken Sorrels, DC, BA [2] Jesse Coats, DC, BS, DAAPM, CCSP [3] Amir Pourmoghaddam, PhD [4] Carlos DeLeon, BS [5] Paige Daigneault, BS [5]

[1] Associate Professor/Research Fellow, Department of Physiology and Chemistry, Texas Chiropractic College

[2] Professor, Department of Technique, Principles and Therapeutics, Texas Chiropractic College

[3] Professor, Chairman, Department of Clinical Specialties, Texas Chiropractic College

[4] Memorial Bone & Joint Clinic Researcher

[5] TCC graduate student assistant Corresponding author: e-mail: Jward@txchiro.edu

Texas Chiropractic College, 5912 Spencer Highway, Pasadena, TX 77505 Campus phone (281) 998-5704, Fax: (281) 487-0581

Table 1.
Baseline study participant attributes.

                  Group 1 LSLM         Group 2 LSLN
                                       (control group
                                       #1)

Sex
  Males           3                    2
  Females         3                    4
Age (y)           26.0 [+ or -] 4.7    29.7 [+ or -] 7.2
Body Mass (kg)    76.6 [+ or -] 12.7   77.4 [+ or -] 18.4
Height (m)        1.74 [+ or -] 0.06   1.68 [+ or -] 0.06
Body Mass         25.4 [+ or -] 4.2    27.4 [+ or -] 5.8
  Index (kg/m2)

                  Group 3              Group 4 RSLN
                  RSLM                 (control
                                       group #2)

Sex
  Males           1                    1
  Females         3                    1
Age (y)           25.5 [+ or -] 5.1    24.7 [+ or -] 2.1
Body Mass (kg)    78.4 [+ or -] 40.0   74.8 [+ or -] 10.4
Height (m)        1.70 [+ or -] 0.12   1.75 [+ or -] 0.04
Body Mass         26.0 [+ or -] 8.8    24.3 [+ or -] 2.8
  Index (kg/m2)

                  Group 5 NSL
                  (control
                  group #3)

Sex
  Males           2
  Females         1
Age (y)           28.3 [+ or -] 4.0
Body Mass (kg)    73.5 [+ or -] 5.2
Height (m)        1.74 [+ or -] 0.04
Body Mass         24.4 [+ or -] 2.1
  Index (kg/m2)

Data listed as mean [+ or -] SD.

Table 2a.
Summary of RSLM and LSLM merged group data (n = 10).

                          Pre Ipsilateral        Post Ipsilateral
                          lower limb             lower limb

Functional Active
    Range of Motion
  hip angle [degrees]     39.0 [+ or -] 4.4      37.7 [+ or -] 3.1
  knee angle [degrees]    59.6 [+ or -] 3.5      58.2 [+ or -] 2.1
  ankle angle [degrees]   33.3 [+ or -] 7.1      31.5 [+ or -] 5.2
Approximate entropy
  hip angle                0.21 [+ or -] 0.02     0.21 [+ or -] 0.03
  knee angle               0.31 [+ or -] 0.06     0.31 [+ or -] 0.07
  ankle angle              0.59 [+ or -] 0.08     0.58 [+ or -] 0.10
Double support
  Double Support (s)       0.30 [+ or -] 0.02     0.31 [+ or -] 0.03
  % Double Support        19.94 [+ or -] 1.07    20.40 [+ or -] 1.40
Stance time
  stance time (s)          1.05 [+ or -] 0.05     1.06 [+ or -] 0.07
  % stance time           69.98 [+ or -] 1.12    70.40 [+ or -] 1.13
Step length
  step length (mm)        409.3 [+ or -] 46.9    413.0 [+ or -] 48.5
Stride length
  stride length (mm)      1089.5 [+ or -] 50.2   1090.8 [+ or -] 59.6

                          t-test   Pre Contralateral
                                   lower limb

Functional Active
    Range of Motion
  hip angle [degrees]     0.258    40.3 [+ or -] 4.4
  knee angle [degrees]    0.135    59.0 [+ or -] 2.5
  ankle angle [degrees]   0.172    31.9 [+ or -] 5.5
Approximate entropy
  hip angle               0.799     0.21 [+ or -] 0.03
  knee angle              0.986     0.33 [+ or -] 0.07
  ankle angle             0.812     0.61 [+ or -] 0.09
Double support
  Double Support (s)      0.173     0.31 [+ or -] 0.02
  % Double Support        0.097    20.39 [+ or -] 1.12
Stance time
  stance time (s)         0.367     1.05 [+ or -] 0.06
  % stance time           0.031    70.30 [+ or -] 1.18
Step length
  step length (mm)        0.306    436.7 [+ or -] 25.8
Stride length
  stride length (mm)      0.867    1099.0 [+ or -] 62.9

                          Post Contralateral      t-test
                          lower limb

Functional Active
    Range of Motion
  hip angle [degrees]     38.8 [+ or -] 2.7       0.244
  knee angle [degrees]    57.9 [+ or -] 2.8       0.203
  ankle angle [degrees]   31.7 [+ or -] 6.2       0.819
Approximate entropy
  hip angle                0.21 [+ or -] 0.04     0.972
  knee angle               0.30 [+ or -] 0.07     0.182
  ankle angle              0.61 [+ or -] 0.08     0.913
Double support
  Double Support (s)       0.31 [+ or -] 0.02     0.577
  % Double Support        20.47 [+ or -] 0.79     0.667
Stance time
  stance time (s)          1.06 [+ or -] 0.07     0.671
  % stance time           70.41 [+ or -] 1.05     0.620
Step length
  step length (mm)        436.3 [+ or -] 24.5     0.913
Stride length
  stride length (mm)      1101.0 [+ or -] 69.0    0.836

Data listed as mean [+ or -] SD for group dependent variable
data.

Table 2b.
Summary of RSLN and LSLN merged group data (n = 8).

                     Pre Ipsilateral          Post Ipsilateral
                     lower limb               lower limb

Functional Active
    Range of
    Motion
  hip angle          38.7 [+ or -] 3.0        39.3 [+ or -] 3.5
    [degrees]
  knee angle         59.5 [+ or -] 3.7        60.0 [+ or -] 4.8
    [degrees]
  ankle angle        33.0 [+ or -] 6.1        32.0 [+ or -] 5.0
    [degrees]
Approximate
    entropy
  hip angle          0.21 [+ or -] 0.03       0.22 [+ or -] 0.03
  knee angle         0.33 [+ or -] 0.07       0.34 [+ or -] 0.07
  ankle angle        0.61 [+ or -] 0.10       0.60 [+ or -] 0.10
Double support
  Double Support     0.30 [+ or -] 0.04       0.31 [+ or -] 0.04
    (s)
  % Double Support   19.99 [+ or -] 1.51      20.41 [+ or -] 1.72
Stance time
  stance time (s)    1.05 [+ or -] 0.10       1.06 [+ or -] 0.09
  % stance time      69.69 [+ or -] 1.40      70.09 [+ or -] 1.53
Step length
  step length        417.2 [+ or -] 50.8      416.6 [+ or -] 47.7
    (mm)
Stride length
  stride length      1086.9 [+ or -] 113.3    1088.0 [+ or -] 104.5
    (mm)

                     t-test   Pre Contralateral
                              lower limb

Functional Active
    Range of
    Motion
  hip angle          0.534    38.9 [+ or -] 2.9
    [degrees]
  knee angle         0.535    59.7 [+ or -] 3.9
    [degrees]
  ankle angle        0.456    32.5 [+ or -] 5.5
    [degrees]
Approximate
    entropy
  hip angle          0.258    0.21 [+ or -] 0.02
  knee angle         0.303    0.33 [+ or -] 0.07
  ankle angle        0.761    0.62 [+ or -] 0.08
Double support
  Double Support     0.183    0.30 [+ or -] 0.04
    (s)
  % Double Support   0.032    20.05 [+ or -] 1.55
Stance time
  stance time (s)    0.677    1.06 [+ or -] 0.09
  % stance time      0.010    70.33 [+ or -] 1.33
Step length
  step length        0.906    427.2 [+ or -] 41.8
    (mm)
Stride length
  stride length      0.924    1098.9 [+ or -] 110.7
    (mm)

                     Post Contralateral       t-test
                     lower limb

Functional Active
    Range of
    Motion
  hip angle          39.9 [+ or -] 3.8        0.207
    [degrees]
  knee angle         60.6 [+ or -] 3.7        0.011
    [degrees]
  ankle angle        32.5 [+ or -] 4.6        0.984
    [degrees]
Approximate
    entropy
  hip angle          0.23 [+ or -] 0.04       0.095
  knee angle         0.33 [+ or -] 0.06       0.951
  ankle angle        0.59 [+ or -] 0.08       0.239
Double support
  Double Support     0.31 [+ or -] 0.04       0.499
    (s)
  % Double Support   20.24 [+ or -] 1.38      0.361
Stance time
  stance time (s)    1.06 [+ or -] 0.08       0.857
  % stance time      70.51 [+ or -] 1.37      0.117
Step length
  step length        425.7 [+ or -] 39.5      0.728
    (mm)
Stride length
  stride length      1099.1 [+ or -] 101.4    0.985
    (mm)

Data listed as mean [+ or -] SD for group dependent variable
data.

Table 2c.
Summary of NSL bilateral mean data (n = 3).

                        Pre lower limb          Post lower limb
Functional Active
    Range of Motion
  hip angle             41.2 [+ or -] 3.3       41.6 [+ or -] 3.4
    [degrees]
  knee angle            62.4 [+ or -] 2.0       65.3 [+ or -] 2.8
    [degrees]
  ankle angle           31.7 [+ or -] 4.1       34.0 [+ or -] 6.2
    [degrees]
Approximate entropy
  hip angle             0.22 [+ or -] 0.03      0.24 [+ or -] 0.04
  knee angle            0.39 [+ or -] 0.02      0.40 [+ or -] 0.02
  ankle angle           0.62 [+ or -] 0.03      0.61 [+ or -] 0.05
Double support
  Double Support (s)    0.29 [+ or -] 0.03      0.29 [+ or -] 0.04
  % Double Support      19.92 [+ or -] 0.68     19.83 [+ or -] 1.08
Stance time
  stance time (s)       1.02 [+ or -] 0.07      1.04 [+ or -] 0.11
  % stance time         69.90 [+ or -] 0.74     69.84 [+ or -] 0.84
Step length
  step length (mm)      421.0 [+ or -] 24.8     427.8 [+ or -] 37.9
Stride length
  stride length (mm)    1052.5 [+ or -] 65.4    1068.9 [+ or -] 105.7

Data listed as mean [+ or -] SD for group dependent variable data.
COPYRIGHT 2014 Canadian Chiropractic Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Ward, John; Sorrels, Ken; Coats, Jesse; Pourmoghaddam, Amir; DeLeon, Carlos; Daigneault, Paige
Publication:Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1U7TX
Date:Jan 1, 2014
Words:6213
Previous Article:Conservative management of idiopathic anterior atlantoaxial subluxation without neurological deficits in an 83-year-old female: a case report.
Next Article:Re: Chiropractors as primary spine care providers: precedents and essential measures.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters