Hip power analysis in individuals with transfemoral amputation: A different strategy different from stabilisation during gait stance

Introduction and Objectives Joint moments and joint powers during gait are widely used to determine the effects of rehabilitation programs as well as prosthetic fitting. Following the definition of power (dot product of joint moment and joint angular velocity) it has been previously proposed to analyse the 3D angle between both vectors, αMw. Basically, joint power is maximised when both vectors are parallel and cancelled when both vectors are orthogonal. In other words, αMw < 60° reveals a propulsion configuration (more than 50% of the moment contribute to positive power) while αMw > 120° reveals a resistance configuration (more than 50% of the moment contribute to negative power). A stabilisation configuration (less than 50% of the moment contribute to power) corresponds to 60° < αMw < 120°. Previous studies demonstrated that hip joints of able-bodied adults (AB) are mainly in a stabilisation configuration (αMw about 90°) during the stance phase of gait. [1, 2] Individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA) need to maximise joint power at the hip while controlling the prosthetic knee during stance. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that TFAs should adopt a strategy that is different from a continuous stabilisation. The objective of this study was to compute joint power and αMw for TFA and to compare them with AB. Methods Three trials of walking at self-selected speed were analysed for 8 TFAs (7 males and 1 female, 46±10 years old, 1.78±0.08 m 82±13 kg) and 8 ABs (males, 25±3 years old, 1.75±0.04, m 67±6 kg). The joint moments are computed from a motion analysis system (Qualisys, Goteborg, Sweden) and a multi-axial transducer (JR3, Woodland, USA) mounted above the prosthetic knee for TFAs and from a motion analysis system (Motion Analysis, Santa Rosa, USA) and force plates (Bertec, Columbus, USA) for ABs. The TFAs were fitted with an OPRA (Integrum, AB, Gothengurg, Sweden) osseointegrated implant system and their prosthetic designs include pneumatic, hydraulic and microprocessor knees. Previous studies showed that the inverse dynamics computed from the multi-axial transducer is the proper method considering the absorption at the foot and resistance at the knee. Results The peak of positive power at loading response (H1) was earlier and lower for TFA compared to AB. Although the joint power is lower, the 3D angle between joint moment and joint angular velocity, αMw, reveals an obvious propulsion configuration (mean αMw about 20°) for TFA compared to a stabilisation configuration (mean αMw about 70°) for AB. The peaks of negative power at midstance (H2) and of positive power at preswing / initial swing (H3) occurred later, lower and longer for TFA compared to AB. Again, the joint powers are lower for TFA but, in this case, αMw is almost comparable (with a time lag), demonstrating a stabilisation (almost a resistance for TFA, mean αMw about 120°) and a propulsion configuration, respectively. The swing phase is not analysed in the present study. Conclusion The analysis of hip joint power may indicate that TFAs demonstrated less propulsion and resistance than ABs during the stance phase of gait. This is true from a quantitative point of view. On the contrary, the 3D angle between joint moment and joint angular velocity, αMw, reveals that TFAs have a remarkable propulsion strategy at loading response and almost a resistance strategy at midstance while ABs adopted a stabilisation strategy. The propulsion configuration, with αMw close to 0°, seems to aim at maximising the positive joint power. The configuration close to resistance, with αMw far from 180°, might aim at unlocking the prosthetic knee before swing while minimising the negative power. This analysis of both joint power and 3D angle between the joint moment and the joint angular velocity provides complementary insights into the gait strategies of TFA that can be used to support evidence-based rehabilitation and fitting of prosthetic components.

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials

Background We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Findings Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). Interpretation Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials.