Gait and Axial Spondyloarthritis: Comparative Gait Analysis Study Using Foot-Worn Inertial Sensors (Preprint)

Abstract

BACKGROUND Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) can lead to spinal mobility restrictions associated with restricted lower limb ranges of motion, thoracic kyphosis, spinopelvic ankylosis, or decrease in muscle strength. It is well known that these factors can have consequences on spatiotemporal gait parameters during walking. However, no study has assessed spatiotemporal gait parameters in patients with axSpA. Divergent results have been obtained in the studies assessing spatiotemporal gait parameters in ankylosing spondylitis, a subgroup of axSpA, which could be partly explained by self-reported pain intensity scores at time of assessment. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) are increasingly popular and may facilitate gait assessment in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE This study compared spatiotemporal gait parameters assessed with foot-worn IMUs in patients with axSpA and matched healthy individuals without and with pain intensity score as a covariate. METHODS A total of 30 patients with axSpA and 30 age- and sex-matched healthy controls performed a 10-m walk test at comfortable speed. Various spatiotemporal gait parameters were computed from foot-worn inertial sensors including gait speed in ms<sup>–1</sup> (mean walking velocity), cadence in steps/minute (number of steps in a minute), stride length in m (distance between 2 consecutive footprints of the same foot on the ground), swing time in percentage (portion of the cycle during which the foot is in the air), stance time in percentage (portion of the cycle during which part of the foot touches the ground), and double support time in percentage (portion of the cycle where both feet touch the ground). RESULTS Age, height, and weight were not significantly different between groups. Self-reported pain intensity was significantly higher in patients with axSpA than healthy controls (<i>P</i><.001). Independent sample <i>t</i> tests indicated that patients with axSpA presented lower gait speed (<i>P</i><.001) and cadence (<i>P</i>=.004), shorter stride length (<i>P</i><.001) and swing time (<i>P</i><.001), and longer double support time (<i>P</i><.001) and stance time (<i>P</i><.001) than healthy controls. When using pain intensity as a covariate, spatiotemporal gait parameters were still significant with patients with axSpA exhibiting lower gait speed (<i>P</i><.001), shorter stride length (<i>P</i>=.001) and swing time (<i>P</i><.001), and longer double support time (<i>P</i><.001) and stance time (<i>P</i><.001) than matched healthy controls. Interestingly, there were no longer statistically significant between-group differences observed for the cadence (<i>P</i>=.17). CONCLUSIONS Gait was significantly altered in patients with axSpA with reduced speed, cadence, stride length, and swing time and increased double support and stance time. Taken together, these changes in spatiotemporal gait parameters could be interpreted as the adoption of a so-called cautious gait pattern in patients with axSpA. Among factors that may influence gait in patients with axSpA, patient self-reported pain intensity could play a role. Finally, IMUs allowed computation of spatiotemporal gait parameters and are usable to assess gait in patients with axSpA in clinical routine. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03761212; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03761212 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.1007/s00296-019-04396-4