Kinematic alterations of the ankle in subjects with generalized joint hypermobility compared with the controls: A cross-sectional study

Introduction Generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) is a hereditary connective tissue disease in which the range of motion (ROM) of multiple joints exceeds the normal range, and the ROM varies with age, gender, and ethnicity. At present, the six-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) of ankle kinematics among people with GJH have not been studied. To investigate the kinematic characteristics in the ankle during treadmill gait of university students with generalized joint hypermobility compared to normal participants. We hypothesized that compared to the participants in the control group, those with GJH would exhibit kinematic characteristics of poorer active motion stability in the ankle during treadmill gait. Methods Healthy university student volunteers aged 18–24 (excluding those with a history of ankle trauma, etc.) were recruited and divided into a control group (50 volunteers) and a GJH group (Beighton score ≥4, 50 volunteers). Data of the 6-DOF kinematics of ankle was collected using a 3D gait analysis system. Variables were evaluated using independent t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results In the proximal/distal parameter, proximal displacement was significantly increased in the GJH group compared with the control group during 4–9% and 96–97% of the gait phase (loading response and terminal swing phase), with an increase of (0.1–0.2 cm, p < .05). Regarding the proximal/distal, internal/external, plantarflexion/dorsiflexion, and anterior/posterior parameters, the participants with GJH exhibited greater ROM than those in the control group throughout the gait cycle (0.24 ± 0.22 cm vs. 0.19 ± 0.15 cm, p = 0.047, 5.56 ± 2.90° vs. 4.48 ± 3.30°, p = .020, 23.05 ± 5.75° vs. 20.36 ± 4.91°, p < .001, 0.65 ± 0.30 cm vs. 0.55 ± 0.27 cm, p = .018). However, ROM of inversion/eversion translation was found to be decreased in the GJH group compared to the control group (8.92 ± 1.59° vs. 9.47 ± 1.37°, p = .009). In addition, there was no statistical difference between the GJH group and the control group in ROM of medial/lateral translation (0.05 ± 0.06 cm vs. 0.04 ± 0.05 cm, p = .131). Conclusion Our results confirm that our hypothesis is not valid. Although there were a few differences in each gait parameter of the ankle between the GJH group and the control group, the difference was not significant. These results indicate that the presence of GJH has less effect on ankle kinematics and enhance our knowledge of the relationship between GJH and 6-DOF of ankle kinematics.