| Title | Date | Type of study | Population | Intervention | Results |
| A Randomized, Prospective Study of 3 Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches in Total Hip Arthroplasty [3] | 2008 | Random control trial | 23 Patients | Patients: 3 groups (Gr) randomized (8 patients for double incision, 8 for PLP and 7 for ALP) Intervention: comparison of walking analysis according to 3 routes in preoperative (PrO) and postoperative (PtO) at 6 weeks Duration: 6 weeks PtO | Walking speed: improvement of 10% on average according to the 3 routes initially at 6 weeks without significant difference between the Gr between the PrO and PtO Unipodal support time: increase of 5 to 25% of the support time according to the 3 paths between PrO and PtO without significant difference between the Grids Charging: No difference between groups and between PrO and PtO values at 6 weeks |
| Changes in gait patterns and muscle activity following total hip arthroplasty: A six-month follow-up [7] | 2013 | Control trial | 76 patients | Patients: 2 Gr (52 patients with TP and 24 control subjects) Intervention: comparison of the 6-month PtO run analysis Duration: 6 months PtO | Loading: in PrO significantly reduced operated side compared to healthy (-2,4%) / similar in bilateral in PtO but reduced vis-à-vis the control group (-2,7%) Length of the step: no difference between the PrO and the PtO of the operated group but a significant difference with respect to the control group with 4 cm less on average |
| Comparison of gait kinematics in patients receiving minimally invasive and traditional hip replacement surgery: A prospective blinded study [8] | 2006 | Comparative study from a random control trial | 27 patients | Patients: 3 Gr (9 patients operated by minimally invasive PP, 8 operated by standard PP and 10 control subjects) Intervention: Comparison of PrO and 6-week PtO run analysis Duration: 6 weeks PtO | Walking speed: no difference between the Gr operated with at 6 weeks values equivalent to those found in PrO Cadence: reduction of the higher rate of immediate PtO (J2) for the minimally invasive group but regularization of this difference at 6 weeks Length of the step: no difference between the Gr operated with 6 weeks of values equivalent to those found in PrO Unipodal support: no difference between the Gr operated with at 6 weeks values equivalent to those found in PrO |
| Comparison of gait in patients following a computer-navigated minimally invasive anterior approach and a conventional posterolateral approach for total hip arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial [9] | 2013 | Random control trial | 105 patients | Patients: 3 Gr (35 patients operated by AP, 40 by PLP and 30 control subjects) Intervention: comparison of the walk analysis in PrO then at 6 weeks PtO, 3 and 6 months Duration: 6 months PtO | Walking speed: no difference between the Gr both in the PrO evaluation and in the evolution at 6 months but improvement of 20% on average over 6 months Length of step: comparable results between the Gr no significant change between 6 weeks and 6 months PtO Cadence: comparable results between the Gr and no significant change between 6 weeks and 6 months PtO |
| Does Surgical Approach During Total Hip Arthroplasty Alter Gait Recovery During the First Year Following Surgery [10] | 2008 | Control trial | 30 patients | Patients: 3 Gr (10 patients operated by TP, 10 by PP and 10 ALP) Intervention: comparison of the PrO walking analysis and then at 6 weeks PtO and at 1 year Duration: 1-year PtO follow-up | Walking speed: significant improvement on average of 30% between the PrO and the PtO at 1 year but comparable between the Gr Length of the step: significant improvement on average of 10% between the PrO and the PtO at 1 year but comparable between the Gr |
| Gait analysis in Patients after Unilateral Hip Arthroplasty [11] | 2015 | Comparative study | 16 patients | Patients: 1 group of patients operated by ALP Intervention: comparison of the PrO and 6-month PtO analysis between the healthy limb and the operated limb Duration: 6 months PtO follow-up | Walking speed: significant improvement at 6 months (+ 12%) Unipodal support time: decreased compared to the healthy side in PrO (-5.6%) and at 6 months (-1.4%) Cadence: significant improvement at 6 months (+ 8.9%) |
| Gait Parameters and Muscle Activation Patterns at 3, 6 and 12 Months After Total Hip Arthroplasty [12] | 2014 | Comparative study | 40 patients | Patients: 2 Gr (20 patients operated by PLP and 20 control subjects) Intervention: comparison of walking analysis and EMG muscle activity in PrO and at 3, 6 months and 1-year PtO Duration: 1-year PtO follow-up | Walking speed: the ATH group works more slowly at 3 months PtO (0.78 m/s) but eventually regains values comparable to the norm (0.92m/s) Support time: improvement during the first 6 months but significant difference with the control group at 1 year (-5.6%) Atypical cycles: improvement during the first 6 months but significant difference with the control group at 1 year (+ 6%) |
| Muscle strength, gait, and balance in 20 patients with hip osteoarthritis followed for 2 years after THA [13] | 2010 | Comparative study | 20 patients | Patients: 20 patients operated on THA by PP Intervention: comparison between the operated limb and the healthy limb according to the evolution of walking at 6 months and 2 years Duration: 2 years PtO follow-up | Unipodal support: decreased in PrO (-4,1%), more significant difference from 6 months PtO |
| No Benefit of the Two-incision THA over Mini-posterior THA: A Pilot Study of Strength and Gait [14] | 2010 | Random control trial | 21 patients | Patients: 2 Gr (11 patients operated by 2 incisions and 10 by PLP) Intervention: comparison in pre, immediate PT and at 6 weeks of the analysis of the market Duration: 6 weeks PtO | Walking speed: VPL group shows better improvement in PtO Unipodal support: VPL group shows better improvement in PtO |
| No Strength or Gait Benefit of Two-incision THA: A Brief Follow up at 1 Year [15] | 2011 | Random control trial | 19 patients | Patients: 2 Gr (11 patients operated by 2 incisions and 8 byPP) Intervention: comparison in PrO, at 6 weeks of PtO then at 1 year of the analysis of walking and the muscular strength Duration: 1 year PtO follow-up | Walking speed: no significant difference between the Gr Unipodal support: improvement of unipodal support time at walking in the group PP at 1 year compared to group 2 incisions |
| Surgical access and damage extent after total hip arthroplasty influence early gait pattern and guide rehabilitation treatment [16] | 2011 | Random control trial | 30 patients | Patients: 2 Gr (15 patients operated by ALP and 15 by TP) Intervention: Comparison of walking analysis and muscle activity in immediate PtO and then at 1 and 3 months Duration: 3 months PtO | Unipodal support: at 1-month, greater improvement in the ALP group (+ 16%), parameter restored to 3 months for the TP Loading: at 1 month, deficit for the TP group due to the achievement of lateral stabilizers, recovery at 3 months |
| The effect of total hip arthroplasty surgical approach on gait [17] | 2004 | Control trial | 29 patients | Patients: 3 Gr (10 patients operated by ALP, 10 by TP and 9 control subjects) Intervention: comparative analysis of walking at 6 months PtO Duration: 6 months PtO | Walking speed: no significant difference between Gr (1.17m/s on average) Cadence: no significant difference between Gr (114.5 steps/min on average) Step length: no significant difference between Gr (1.22 m on average) |
| The effect of surgical approach on gait mechanics after total hip arthroplasty [18] | 2018 | Comparative study | 45 patients | Patients: 2 Gr (30 patients operated by PP and 15 by ALP) Intervention: PrO step analysis and 3 month PtO Duration: 3 months PtO | Walking speed: comparable improvement between 2 Gr at 3 months (+ 25% and 1.3 m/s at 3 months on average) |
| The effect of total hip arthroplasty surgical approach on postoperative gait mechanics [19] | 2011 | Comparative study | 35 patients | Patients: 3 Gr (8 patients operated by TP, 12 by PP and 15 by ALP) Intervention: PrO walking analysis and 6 weeks PtO Duration: 6 weeks PtO | Walking speed: comparable improvement between Gr (+12% with 1.22m/s on average at 2 weeks PtO) Step length: comparable improvement between Gr (+ 10% at 6 weeks PtO) Unipodal support: comparable improvement between the Gr |
| Total Hip Arthroplasty Surgical Approach Does Not Alter Postoperative Gait Mechanics One Year After Surgery [20] | 2014 | Control trial | 35 patients | Patients: 3 Gr (12 patients operated by TP, 18 by PP and 11 by ALP) Intervention: PtO 1-year run analysis Duration: 1-year PtO | Walking speed: no significant difference between the Gr Step length: no significant difference between the Gr Unipodal support: no significant difference between the Gr Charging: no significant difference between the Gr |