OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that, at 0° and 20° of knee flexion, patellofemoral contact area would be lower, while tibiofemoral rotation and patellofemoral malalignment would be higher in participants with patellofemoral pain (PFP) compared to pain-free participants. We hypothesized that no differences would be detected at 40° due to increasing patellar stability. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, descriptive study. METHODS: Twenty-seven people with PFP and 29 pain-free people participated. Participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging at 0°, 20°, and 40° knee flexion with the limb in a simulated weight-bearing position. Patellofemoral contact area, tibiofemoral rotation angle, patellofemoral alignment (bisect offset index and patellar tilt angle) were quantified and compared between groups at each angle using Student's t-tests. An a-posteriori comparison was made between the pain-free group and a subgroup of 15 participants with patellofemoral pain who demonstrated a faulty lower limb movement pattern ("medial collapse"). RESULTS: In the patellofemoral pain group, contact area was lower at 0° (203.8±45.5 mm² vs. 224.1±46.6 mm², p=0.05) and 20° (276.8±56.2 mm² vs. 316.7±82.8 mm², p=0.02), bisect offset index (BOS) and patellar tilt angle (PTA) were higher at 0° (bisect offset index: 0.69±0.13 vs. 0.64±0.09, p=0.04; patellar tilt angle: 12.5±7.6° vs. 9.2±5.8°, p=0.04). In the patellofemoral pain subgroup, tibiofemoral rotation was higher at 0° compared to pain-free participants (6.4±5.9° vs. 4.0±4.6°, p=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: While contact area and patellofemoral alignment were altered in people with patellofemoral pain, tibiofemoral rotation was altered in a subgroup of people who demonstrated medial collapse. Subgroup classification may help identify mechanisms of pain and assist in developing targeted interventions.
OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that, at 0° and 20° of knee flexion, patellofemoral contact area would be lower, while tibiofemoral rotation and patellofemoral malalignment would be higher in participants with patellofemoral pain (PFP) compared to pain-free participants. We hypothesized that no differences would be detected at 40° due to increasing patellar stability. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, descriptive study. METHODS: Twenty-seven people with PFP and 29 pain-free people participated. Participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging at 0°, 20°, and 40° knee flexion with the limb in a simulated weight-bearing position. Patellofemoral contact area, tibiofemoral rotation angle, patellofemoral alignment (bisect offset index and patellar tilt angle) were quantified and compared between groups at each angle using Student's t-tests. An a-posteriori comparison was made between the pain-free group and a subgroup of 15 participants with patellofemoral pain who demonstrated a faulty lower limb movement pattern ("medial collapse"). RESULTS: In the patellofemoral pain group, contact area was lower at 0° (203.8±45.5 mm² vs. 224.1±46.6 mm², p=0.05) and 20° (276.8±56.2 mm² vs. 316.7±82.8 mm², p=0.02), bisect offset index (BOS) and patellar tilt angle (PTA) were higher at 0° (bisect offset index: 0.69±0.13 vs. 0.64±0.09, p=0.04; patellar tilt angle: 12.5±7.6° vs. 9.2±5.8°, p=0.04). In the patellofemoral pain subgroup, tibiofemoral rotation was higher at 0° compared to pain-free participants (6.4±5.9° vs. 4.0±4.6°, p=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: While contact area and patellofemoral alignment were altered in people with patellofemoral pain, tibiofemoral rotation was altered in a subgroup of people who demonstrated medial collapse. Subgroup classification may help identify mechanisms of pain and assist in developing targeted interventions.
Authors: S D Kwak; C S Ahmad; T R Gardner; R P Grelsamer; J H Henry; L Blankevoort; G A Ateshian; V C Mow Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: S Hinterwimmer; M Gotthardt; R von Eisenhart-Rothe; S Sauerland; M Siebert; T Vogl; F Eckstein; H Graichen Journal: J Biomech Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Jacklyn Heino Brechter; Christopher M Powers; Michael R Terk; Samuel R Ward; Thay Q Lee Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Erin M Macri; Adam G Culvenor; Hayden G Morris; Timothy S Whitehead; Trevor G Russell; Karim M Khan; Kay M Crossley Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Michael J Rainbow; Daniel L Miranda; Roy T H Cheung; Joel B Schwartz; Joseph J Crisco; Irene S Davis; Braden C Fleming Journal: J Biomech Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Marc J Heronemus; Kaitlin Rabe; Irina Tolstykh; K Douglas Gross; Barton L Wise; Michael C Nevitt; Cora E Lewis; Howard J Hillstrom; Neil A Segal Journal: PM R Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Erin M Macri; Agnes G d'Entremont; Kay M Crossley; Harvi F Hart; Bruce B Forster; David R Wilson; Charles R Ratzlaff; Charlie H Goldsmith; Karim M Khan Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 3.494