|
 
 |
| REVIEW ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 22
| Issue : 2 | Page : 51-60 |
|
Gait during simulated and natural leg length discrepancy: Inconsistencies in the literature
Syed Murtaza Hussain Andrabi, Dhananjoy Shaw
Department of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India
| Date of Submission | 19-Jun-2022 |
| Date of Decision | 25-Jul-2022 |
| Date of Acceptance | 27-Jul-2022 |
| Date of Web Publication | 30-Aug-2022 |
Correspondence Address:
Prof. Dhananjoy Shaw
Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, University of Delhi, B.Block, Vikaspuri, New Delhi - 110 018
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/sjsm.sjsm_14_22
For convenience, researchers have simulated leg length discrepancy (LLD) by installing an insole or a heel lift in one foot of healthy participants. However, the results of these studies have contradicted the results found in the studies that investigated naturally occurring LLD. The objective of this article was to discuss the methodological considerations of simulated and natural LLD conditions in detail and highlight the inconsistencies in their findings. The studies simulating LLD demonstrate the acute effect of LLD for this reason they should be disparaged for not being physiologic, leading to non-LLD characteristic gait patterns in terms of kinetic and kinematic parameter's. This puts a question mark when it comes to generalizing the results of simulated studies to those that have true LLD.
Keywords: Biomechanics, gait, kinematics, leg length discrepancy, simulated leg length discrepancy
How to cite this article:
Andrabi SM, Shaw D. Gait during simulated and natural leg length discrepancy: Inconsistencies in the literature. Saudi J Sports Med 2022;22:51-60 |
How to cite this URL:
Andrabi SM, Shaw D. Gait during simulated and natural leg length discrepancy: Inconsistencies in the literature. Saudi J Sports Med [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 May 31];22:51-60. Available from: https://www.sjosm.org/text.asp?2022/22/2/51/355192 |
| Introduction | |  |
Leg length discrepancy (LLD) is a condition where the length of the right and left legs varies noticeably in the same individual. When LLD is sufficient, it can cause many functional (related to gait and posture) as well as musculoskeletal problems.[1]
To assess the effects of LLD, screening of the subjects is necessary. There are various ways to evaluate the amount of LLD in an individual which can be broadly classified into radiographic and clinical measurements. The radiographic method is considered the gold standard for evaluating LLD;[2] however, this measurement technique is expensive and exposes the subjects to harmful radiation. On the other hand, clinical methods are cost-effective and have an acceptable validity when compared to the radiographic method.[3] For this reason, the researchers have adopted the clinical methods, with tape measurement being frequently used in many studies as a tool to evaluate the degree of LLD.
One author had to screen 30 subjects to find an LLD of >1.5 cm, meaning that a large sample needs to be screened before incorporating them into a study.[4] To overcome this problem, the researcher adopted a method to simulate LLD by installing an insole or a heel lift in healthy subjects, thus mimicking the condition acutely where the two legs have varied lengths.[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] This method has one advantage, i.e., the degree of LLD can be increased to as much as they want. Furthermore, it seemingly allows the researchers to draw tangible conclusions by saying that a particular degree of LLD is significant or insignificant.
On the other hand, many efforts have also been made to research subjects who have inherent LLD.[12],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22] The researchers have usually divided the subjects into control group and experimental group, with subjects having minor LLD in the control group and subjects with significant LLD in the experimental group.
The literature is divided on the amount of discrepancy that is significant to cause deviation in an able-bodied gait with inconsistencies between simulated and natural LLD studies. Hence, the objective of this study was to look into the methodological consideration of both simulated and natural LLD studies to see how their findings stand out.
| Methods | | |
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
The studies investigating gait and LLD with no other musculoskeletal problems or neurological problems were included in this review. Studies that simulated the LLD by applying raises were also included in this review since they are the focus of this study.
Search strategy
The search was made in the databases such as ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Europe PMC. The following keywords were used to search for the article: “leg length discrepancy,” “leg length inequality” and were mixed with “gait,” “walking” to find the purposeful articles using Boolean operators such as OR. Eleven and eight studies investigating simulated and natural LLD, respectively, were identified for this review study. [Figure 1] shows the scheme of the process through which studied were included for this review study.
Inherent leg length discrepancy interference
Equal leg length in the human population is a rear occurrence,[23] which means that most of the population (90%) has some amount of LLD.[24] This develops into a problem of underestimation or overestimation in the simulated studies with the inherent LLD either increasing or decreasing the LLD depending upon the intervention side and the inherent side of the short leg. The inherent LLD can either add to the artificial LLD if the lift is applied to the Long leg, or it can offset the artificial LLD if the heel lift is applied to the short leg, thereby partly correcting the induced LLD. This inherent LLD can interact and potentially fiddle with the results of the simulated results and will be referred to as inherent LLD interference (ILLDI) from now on.
Prior leg length discrepancy screening of subjects in the simulated studies
There are many studies that did not account for ILLDI,[5],[7],[8],[13],[14] while other studies have controlled this factor with prior screening with the tape measurement method[6],[10],[12],[15] and palpation meter method.[9] Most of the studies that screened their subjects for LLD set the acceptable LLD at <0.5 mm,[9],[10],[12] while two studies set the acceptable LLD at <1 cm [Table 1].[6],[15]
It however does not make much sense to allow a discrepancy of up to 1 cm and then go on to study the intervention effect of 1 cm or even 2 cm LLD. The reason is that if you are simulating a condition of 1 cm, the allowed LLD which is up to 1 cm will chip in, and thus, the researcher will overestimate or underestimate the amount of discrepancy.
Material used/side of intervention
For their study, studies investigating simulating LLD have used different kinds of material to mimic the condition of LLD. The materials that are commonly used are pair of sandals (high-density ethylene vinyl acetate),[7],[8],[9],[10],[11] insole,[5] soft insole,[6] rubberized compound,[12] flexible polyurethane soles,[13] heel-raising orthotic device,[14] and Crepe material [Table 1].[15] The ethylene vinyl acetate seems to be predominantly used because of its lightweight and tough nature; these properties would not allow this additional material to affect any of the gait parameters.
In regard to the side of intervention, studies have maintained a trend of applying the raises to the right side,[5],[6],[9],[11],[14],[15] thus mimicking a shorter left side, while other studies have not mentioned their side of intervention.[7],[8],[9],[10],[12],[13] Why studies are mimicking a shorter left side as opposed to a shorter right side has not been justified in the literature. Especially when studies have shown that up to 75% of cases have a shorter right leg in a sample consisting of LLD individuals.[24] This adds a limitation to the simulated studies.
Magnitude of leg length discrepancy
Simulated studies have considerably varied in the amount of LLD induced, ranging from 0.5 cm up to 5 cm. However, the most commonly induced magnitude of LLD is 1 cm, 1.5 cm, and 2 cm.[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]
In the case of the studies examining natural LLD, the subjects were divided into a control group and a discrepant group after the screen for LLD was done.
Kinetic deviations associated with leg length discrepancy
[Table 2] displays the common kinetic deviations associated with LLD. The table is further divided to show the how those deviation occur at a anatomical location or during a specific phase of gait. The studies show that kinetic deviations begin to develop in the subjects with LLD even when it is as small as 0.5 cm in the joint contact forces[5] and also in vertical ground reaction force (VGRF)[20] in both the short and long limbs. The joint contact forces in the individuals having ranging from 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm and whereas joint contact forces increased in the individuals having LLD ranging from 1.5 cm up to 4 cm. The fact that there was a decline initially and then an increase as the level of LLD was increased is surprising. One possible reason could be the ILLDI since the study[5] did not show any prior screening record. Thus, the possible hypothesis is that up to 1.5 cm of induced LLD is actually correcting the inherent LLD, and so, we see the kinetic deviations up to 1.5 cm as a result of the correction of inherent LLD. | Table 2: Common kinetic deviations associated with leg length discrepancy during walking
Click here to view |
In regard to the variable weight distribution the weight shifts to the shorter limb of the LLD, the effect is pronounced from 1 cm and continues to shift up to 4 cm toward the shorter limb of the LLD.[8] From an LLD level of 2 cm, there is an increased center of mass displacement in the mediolateral direction which continues up to 4 cm of LLD.[8]
The flexion moment of the ankle, knee, and hip joint at 2 cm LLD has shown to be significantly different when they were compared to a control group with LLD of < 0.5 cm. During the time of loading and mid-stance, there was an increased ankle plantar flexion moment, while smaller ankle plantar flexion was found during the late phase in the short limb of LLD. In the long limb, there was a smaller plantar flexion moment in the late stance.[10] In regard to knee flexion moment, there was a smaller knee flexion moment during the early stance in the short limb, while there was a greater knee extension moment in the long limb during the early stance phase of the gait cycle. There was an increased hip flexion moment in the short leg during early stance phase while a greater hip flexion moment during the terminal stance of the gait cycle [Table 3].[10]
Spatiotemporal deviations associated with leg length discrepancy
The data from various studies suggest that the spatiotemporal variables are not affected until there is an LLD of 1.5 cm or greater [Table 4]. The stance phase was decreased at 1.5 cm in the short limb, while in the long leg, the stance phase was increased at 2 cm of LLD. The single support phase decreased in the short leg while the same variable increased in the long leg. In regard to the variable swing phase, there was an increased swing phase in the long leg at 1.5 cm;[6] however, in a contradiction, another study found a decreased swing phase in the short limb at 2 cm of LLD.[9] On the other hand, there was a decreased swing phase in the long leg at 1.5 cm[6] and 2 cm[9] of LLD. In the double support, phase, gait velocity, and cadence decreased when the LLD was 1.5 cm.[6] | Table 4: Between-condition comparison map of LLD (spatiotemporal parameters)
Click here to view |
Kinematic deviations associated with leg length discrepancy
[Table 5] displays the common kinematic deviations associated with LLD. It further displays the kinematic deviations at specific anatomical locations for both legs during stance phase and swing phase. The kinematic variables, more specifically the range of motion variables, are also affected when the LLD level is 1 cm and more so when the LLD level is 2 cm or greater. At 1 cm of LLD, there is an increased amount of hip abduction and adduction in the short limb, while there is a decreased amount of hip adduction in the long limb [Table 6].[6] At the ankle joint of the long limb, there is an increased amount of dorsiflexion, pronation, eversion, and inversion as well as decreased supination. | Table 5: Common kinematic deviations associated with leg length discrepancy during walking
Click here to view |
At 2 cm LLD, there is increased hip adduction and abduction in the short leg.[6] However, in another study, hip abduction was not significant in naturally occurring LLD.[16] In addition, there was a smaller hip flexion and adduction during the first half of the stance phase.[10] In the long leg there were increased hip adduction, greater hip flexion, and adduction angle during the Frist half of the stance phase and a higher hip addiction angle in comparison to non-LLD individuals. At the knee joint, there was greater knee extension during the early stance phase of gait in the short leg;[10] in the long leg, there was an increased knee flexion,[6],[10] knee extension, and knee internal rotation [Table 7].[6]
At the ankle joint, there was greater rear foot plantar flexion and inversion throughout stance in the long limb.[10] In the long limb, increased dorsiflexion,[10],[6] pronation, eversion,[6] and inversion[6],[10] and decreased supination[6] were observed during the stance phase of the gait.
| Discussion | | |
The objective of this study was to look critically into the methodological aspects of the simulated and natural studies which are the two ways to investigate the biomechanics of LLD during gait. First, it should be bought to attention that while simulating LLD, prior screening is an essential part of the study since it allows ruling out the danger of including participants who have a considerable amount of LLD who can potentially tamper with the results of the study.
White et al. demonstrated that the effects of a simulated LLD and true LLD on ground reaction forces were similar during the first half of the gait cycle (weight acceptance). However, it was pointed out that the short- and long-term adaptations could differ in the last phase of the stance of the gait cycle.[12] The findings of this study imply that when LLD is simulated, the deviations in gait are reported earlier on, as opposed to when studying subjects with congenital LLD who seem to adopt an LLD up to 2 cm fairly well [Table 8] and [Table 9].
To point out a few inconsistencies, increased hip abduction (short limb) was found at 2 cm in a simulated study,[6] which was not confirmed by a study investigating congenital LLD.[16] Similarly, increased VGRF (short limb) was found at 2 cm of LLD in a simulated study[8] while a study investigating congenital LLD in runners could not confirm the finding [Table 1].[20] There is clearly a distinction between short- and long-term adaptations which are often not recognized when concluding. Therefore, it is suggested that the finding of the simulated studies cannot and should not be generalized to those with congenital LLD.
There seems to be a breakpoint between 1.5 cm and 2 cm at which LLD substantially affects the gait parameters of an individual [Table 10]. Many studies have investigated the immediate effects of correcting LLD with an insole, and the kinematic deviations are instantly corrected.[16] This seems like an appropriate measure to treat mild LLD (>1.5 cm).
| Conclusions | | |
It is a common practice for studies to recruit healthy subjects to participate in studies simulating LLD with LLD level below a pre-set level (<1 cm or <0.5 cm). Studies not screening for LLD before commencing a simulated study may end up recruiting participants with significant LLD which will affect the outcome of the study. It is evident that simulated studies report deviations in gait parameters early on, while the subjects with congenital LLD seem to adapt an LLD of up to 2 cm fairly well during unloaded gait. The findings extend the conclusion that he studies simulating LLD demonstrate the acute effect of LLD for this reason they should be disparaged for not being physiologic, leading to non-LLD characteristic gait patterns in terms of kinetic and kinematic parameter's. Hence, generalization becomes impossible.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Gurney B. Leg length discrepancy. Gait Posture 2002;15:195-206.  |
| 2. | Sabharwal S, Kumar A. Methods for assessing leg length discrepancy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466:2910-22. |
| 3. | Jamaluddin S, Sulaiman AR, Imran MK, Juhara H, Ezane MA, Nordin S. Reliability and accuracy of the tape measurement method with a nearest reading of 5 mm in the assessment of leg length discrepancy. Singapore Med J 2011;52:681-4. |
| 4. | Hellsing AL. Leg length inequality. A prospective study of young men during their military service. Ups J Med Sci 1988;93:245-53. |
| 5. | Othman NF, Basaruddin KS, Som MH, Majid MS, Sulaiman RA. The effect of leg length inequality on joint contact forces of lower limbs during walking. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2019;21:55-62. |
| 6. | Wook KY,Jo SY, Kwon JH. Effects of artificial leg length discrepancies on the dynamic joint angles of the hip, knee, and ankle during Gait. J Korean Soc Phys Med 2019;14:53-61. |
| 7. | Azizan NA, Salhani DA, Basaruddin KS, Salleh AF, Rusli WM, Sulaiman AR. Leg length discrepancy effects on range of motion in lower limb during walking. Int J Eng Technol 2018;7:374-6. |
| 8. | Azizan NA, Basaruddin KS, Salleh AF, Sulaiman AR, Safar MJA, Rusli WMR. Leg length discrepancy: Dynamic balance response during Gait. J Healthc Eng 2018;2018:7815451. |
| 9. | Jung SJ, An DH, Shin SS. The effects of simulated mild leg length discrepancy on gait parameters and trunk acceleration. Phys Ther Korea 2018;25:9-18. |
| 10. | Resende RA, Kirkwood RN, Deluzio KJ, Cabral S, Fonseca ST. Biomechanical strategies implemented to compensate for mild leg length discrepancy during gait. Gait Posture 2016;46:147-53. |
| 11. | Needham R, Chockalingam N, Dunning D, Healy A, Ahmed EB, Ward A. The effect of leg length discrepancy on pelvis and spine kinematics during gait. Stud Health Technol Inform 2012;176:104-7. |
| 12. | White SC, Gilchrist LA, Wilk BE. Asymmetric limb loading with true or simulated leg-length differences. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;16:287-92. |
| 13. | O'Toole GC, Makwana NK, Lunn J, Harty J, Stephens MM. The effect of leg length discrepancy on foot loading patterns and contact times. Foot Ankle Int 2003;24:256-9. |
| 14. | Kakushima M, Miyamoto K, Shimizu K. The effect of leg length discrepancy on spinal motion during gait: three-dimensional analysis in healthy volunteers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:2472-6. |
| 15. | Gurney B, Mermier C, Robergs R, Gibson A, Rivero D. Effects of limb-length discrepancy on gait economy and lower-extremity muscle activity in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83:907-15. |
| 16. | Bangerter C, Romkes J, Lorenzetti S, Krieg AH, Hasler CC, Brunner R, et al. What are the biomechanical consequences of a structural leg length discrepancy on the adolescent spine during walking? Gait Posture 2019;68:506-13. |
| 17. | Yong M, Park S. Leg length discrepancy to influence on kinematic changes of the pelvis and the hip during gait. J Kor Phys Ther 2019;31:368-71. |
| 18. | Aiona M, Do KP, Emara K, Dorociak R, Pierce R. Gait patterns in children with limb length discrepancy. J Pediatr Orthop 2015;35:280-4. |
| 19. | Seeley MK, Umberger BR, Clasey JL, Shapiro R. The relation between mild leg-length inequality and able-bodied gait asymmetry. J Sports Sci Med 2010;9:572-9. |
| 20. | Pereira SC, Sacco IC. Is structural AND MILD leg length discrepancy enough to cause a kinetic change in runners' gait? Acta Ortop Bras 2008;16:28-31. |
| 21. | Perttunen JR, Anttila E, Södergård J, Merikanto J, Komi PV. Gait asymmetry in patients with limb length discrepancy. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2004;14:49-56. |
| 22. | Song KM, Halliday SE, Little DG. The effect of limb-length discrepancy on gait. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997;79:1690-8. |
| 23. | Giles LG. Lumbosacral facetal “joint angles' associated with leg length inequality. Rheumatol Rehabil 1981;20:233-8. |
| 24. | Knutson GA. Anatomic and functional leg-length inequality: A review and recommendation for clinical decision-making. Part I, anatomic leg-length inequality: Prevalence, magnitude, effects and clinical significance. Chiropr Osteopat 2005;13:11. |
| 25. | Wretenberg P, Hugo A, Broström E. Hip joint load in relation to leg length discrepancy. Med Devices (Auckl) 2008;1:13-8. |
| 26. | Jo MJ, Kim DH, Han DW, Choi EJ, Kim YS, Kim YW. Effect of artificial leg length discrepancy on 3D hip joint moments during gait in healthy individuals. PNF Move 2019;17:391-9. |
| 27. | Walsh M, Connolly P, Jenkinson A, O'Brien T. Leg length discrepancy-An experimental study of compensatory changes in three dimensions using gait analysis. Gait Posture 2000;12:156-61. |
[Figure 1]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8], [Table 9], [Table 10]
|
Search Pubmed for