Valentina Graci1, Gretchen B Salsich2. 1. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Department of Neurology, USA. Electronic address: vgraci@som.umaryland.edu. 2. Musculoskeletal Movement Science Laboratory, Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, Saint Louis University, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To understand how instructing females with patellofemoral pain to correct dynamic knee valgus affects pelvis, femur, tibia and trunk segment kinematics. To determine if pain reduction in the corrected condition was associated with improved segment kinematics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: A 3D-motion capture system was used to collect multi-joint kinematics on 20 females with dynamic knee valgus and patellofemoral pain during a single-leg squat in two conditions: usual movement pattern, and corrected dynamic knee valgus. During each condition pain was assessed using a visual analog scale. Pelvis, femur, tibia and trunk kinematics in the frontal and transverse planes were compared between conditions using a paired T-test. Pearson correlation coefficients were generated between visual analog scale score and the kinematic variables in the corrected condition. RESULTS: In the corrected condition subjects had increased lateral flexion of the pelvis toward the weight-bearing limb (p<0.001), decreased femoral adduction (p=0.001) and internal rotation (p=0.01). A trend toward decreased tibial internal rotation (p=0.057) and increased trunk lateral flexion toward the weight-bearing limb (p=0.055) was also found. Lower pain levels were associated with less femoral internal rotation (p=0.04) and greater trunk lateral flexion toward the weight-bearing limb (p=0.055). CONCLUSIONS: Decreased hip adduction after instruction was comprised of motion at both the pelvis and femur. Decreased pain levels were associated with lower extremity segment kinematics moving in the direction opposite to dynamic knee valgus. These results increase our understanding of correction strategies used by females with patellofemoral pain and provide insight for rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVES: To understand how instructing females with patellofemoral pain to correct dynamic knee valgus affects pelvis, femur, tibia and trunk segment kinematics. To determine if pain reduction in the corrected condition was associated with improved segment kinematics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: A 3D-motion capture system was used to collect multi-joint kinematics on 20 females with dynamic knee valgus and patellofemoral pain during a single-leg squat in two conditions: usual movement pattern, and corrected dynamic knee valgus. During each condition pain was assessed using a visual analog scale. Pelvis, femur, tibia and trunk kinematics in the frontal and transverse planes were compared between conditions using a paired T-test. Pearson correlation coefficients were generated between visual analog scale score and the kinematic variables in the corrected condition. RESULTS: In the corrected condition subjects had increased lateral flexion of the pelvis toward the weight-bearing limb (p<0.001), decreased femoral adduction (p=0.001) and internal rotation (p=0.01). A trend toward decreased tibial internal rotation (p=0.057) and increased trunk lateral flexion toward the weight-bearing limb (p=0.055) was also found. Lower pain levels were associated with less femoral internal rotation (p=0.04) and greater trunk lateral flexion toward the weight-bearing limb (p=0.055). CONCLUSIONS: Decreased hip adduction after instruction was comprised of motion at both the pelvis and femur. Decreased pain levels were associated with lower extremity segment kinematics moving in the direction opposite to dynamic knee valgus. These results increase our understanding of correction strategies used by females with patellofemoral pain and provide insight for rehabilitation.
Authors: Bohdanna T Zazulak; Timothy E Hewett; N Peter Reeves; Barry Goldberg; Jacek Cholewicki Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2007-04-27 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Magdalena Zawadka; Jakub Smolka; Maria Skublewska-Paszkowska; Edyta Lukasik; Aleksandra Bys; Grzegorz Zielinski; Piotr Gawda Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Davor Vasiljevic; Gretchen B Salsich; Darrah Snozek; Bradley Aubin; Stefanie N Foster; Michael J Mueller; John C Clohisy; Marcie Harris-Hayes Journal: Physiother Theory Pract Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: James Selfe; Jessie Janssen; Michael Callaghan; Erik Witvrouw; Chris Sutton; Jim Richards; Maria Stokes; Denis Martin; John Dixon; Russell Hogarth; Vasilios Baltzopoulos; Elizabeth Ritchie; Nigel Arden; Paola Dey Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Kenzie B Friesen; Regan E Shaw; David M Shannon; Jeffrey R Dugas; James R Andrews; Gretchen D Oliver Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-03-23