Danielle Goulette1, Patrick Griffith1, Michael Schiller1, Drew Rutherford1, Thomas W Kernozek2. 1. La Crosse Institute for Movement Science, Physical Therapy Program, Department of Health Professions, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, Health Science Center, 1300 Badger Street, La Crosse, WI, 54601, USA. 2. La Crosse Institute for Movement Science, Physical Therapy Program, Department of Health Professions, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, Health Science Center, 1300 Badger Street, La Crosse, WI, 54601, USA. Electronic address: kernozek.thom@uwlax.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine patellofemoral joint (PFJ) loading in two lunge movements: Forward Lunge (FL) and Backward Lunge (BL). DESIGN: Repeated Measures. SETTING: University Biomechanics Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 20 asymptomatic females. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Six trials of two lunge movements (FL and BL) to a depth of 75% of leg length were performed. 3-D motion capture and force platforms were used to collect data as input into a musculoskeletal model to determine quadriceps force, PFJ reaction force, PFJ stress, and knee flexion angle. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis indicated differences in PFJ loading variables and joint angles between the lunge movements (Forward vs. Backward) and phases (Down vs. Up). Quadriceps force, PFJ reaction force, and knee flexion angle were larger in the FL movement and Up phases. PFJ loading rate was greater in the FL movement along with a lower forward trunk tilt. CONCLUSION: The FL produced greater PFJ loading variables compared to the BL. Further research is needed to examine a population of individuals who have patellofemoral pain (PFP) to see if their symptoms may be reduced when using the BL.
OBJECTIVE: To examine patellofemoral joint (PFJ) loading in two lunge movements: Forward Lunge (FL) and Backward Lunge (BL). DESIGN: Repeated Measures. SETTING: University Biomechanics Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 20 asymptomatic females. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Six trials of two lunge movements (FL and BL) to a depth of 75% of leg length were performed. 3-D motion capture and force platforms were used to collect data as input into a musculoskeletal model to determine quadriceps force, PFJ reaction force, PFJ stress, and knee flexion angle. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis indicated differences in PFJ loading variables and joint angles between the lunge movements (Forward vs. Backward) and phases (Down vs. Up). Quadriceps force, PFJ reaction force, and knee flexion angle were larger in the FL movement and Up phases. PFJ loading rate was greater in the FL movement along with a lower forward trunk tilt. CONCLUSION: The FL produced greater PFJ loading variables compared to the BL. Further research is needed to examine a population of individuals who have patellofemoral pain (PFP) to see if their symptoms may be reduced when using the BL.