Jenny McConnell

The Management of Chondromalacia Patellae: A Long Term Solution

Patellofemoral pain syndrome can be a difficult condition to manage effectively. The success rate of most treatment regimes has been poor and in the long term the condition frequently recurs. The author has developed a treatment programme which has a ninety-six percent success rate. Long term follow up of patients, after twelve months demonstrated that all patients reviewed have remained pain free. The programme involves two major components: a thorough understanding of the mechanics of the patellofemoral joint so that an adequate assessment of the patients lower limb can be made, and context specific training of certain muscles which contribute to patellar alignment. This training must be relatively pain free so that muscle control can be enhanced.

Physical Therapy for Patellofemoral Pain A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background Although physical therapy forms the mainstay of nonoperative management for patellofemoral pain, its efficacy has not been established. Hypothesis Significantly more pain relief will be achieved from a 6-week regimen of physical therapy than from placebo treatment. Study Design Multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Methods Seventy-one subjects, 40 years of age or younger with patellofemoral pain of 1 month or longer, were randomly allocated to a physical therapy or placebo group. A standardized treatment program consisted of six treatment sessions, once weekly. Physical therapy included quadriceps muscle retraining, patellofemoral joint mobilization, and patellar taping, and daily home exercises. The placebo treatment consisted of sham ultrasound, light application of a nontherapeutic gel, and placebo taping. Results Sixty-seven participants completed the trial. The physical therapy group (N = 33) demonstrated significantly greater reduction in the scores for average pain, worst pain, and disability than did the placebo group (N = 34). Conclusions A six-treatment, 6-week physical therapy regimen is efficacious for alleviation of patellofemoral pain.

A systematic review of physical interventions for patellofemoral pain syndrome

ObjectivePhysical interventions (nonpharmacological and nonsurgical) are the mainstay of treatment for patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS). Physiotherapy is the most common of all physical interventions and includes specific vastus medialis obliquus or general quadriceps strengthening and/or realignment procedures (tape, brace, stretching). These treatments appear to be based on sound theoretical rationale and have attained widespread acceptance, but evidence for the efficacy of these interventions is not well established. This review will present the available evidence for physical interventions for PFPS. Data SourcesComputerized bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Current Contents, CINAHL) were searched, including the keywords “patellofemoral,” “patella,” and “anterior knee pain,” combined with “treatment,” “rehabilitation,” and limited to clinical trials through October 2000. Study SelectionThe critical eligibility criteria used for inclusion were that the study be a controlled trial, that outcome assessments were adequately described, and that the treatment was a nonpharmacological, nonsurgical physical intervention. ResultsOf the 89 potentially relevant titles, 16 studies were reviewed and none of these fulfilled all of the requirements for a randomized, controlled trial. Physiotherapy interventions were evaluated in eight trials, and the remaining eight trials examined different physical interventions. Significant reductions in PFPS symptoms were found with a corrective foot orthosis and a progressive resistance brace, but there is no evidence to support the use of patellofemoral orthoses, acupuncture, low-level laser, chiropractic patellar mobilization, or patellar taping. Overall the physiotherapy interventions had significant beneficial effects but these interventions were not compared with a placebo control. There is inconclusive evidence to support the superiority of one physiotherapy intervention compared with others. ConclusionsThe evidence to support the use of physical interventions in the management of PFPS is limited. There appears to be a consistent improvement in short-term pain and function due to physiotherapy treatment, but comparison with a placebo group is required to determine efficacy, and further trials are warranted for the other interventions.

The physical therapist's approach to patellofemoral disorders.

Management of patellofemoral pain is no longer a conundrum if the therapist can determine the underlying causative factors and address those factors in treatment. It is imperative that the patients symptoms are significantly reduced. This often is achieved by taping the patella, which not only decreases the pain but also promotes an earlier activation of the VMO and increases quadriceps torque. Management needs to include specific VMO training, gluteal-control work, stretching tight lateral structures, and appropriate advice regarding the foot, whether it is orthotics, training, or taping.

Simultaneous feedforward recruitment of the vasti in untrained postural tasks can be restored by physical therapy

Background and purpose: Physical therapy rehabilitation strategies are commonly directed at the alteration of muscle recruitment in functional movements. The aim of this study was to investigate whether feedforward strategies of the vasti in people with patellofemoral pain syndrome can be changed by a physical therapy treatment program in a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.

Evaluation and Treatment of Disorders of the Infrapatellar Fat Pad

The infrapatellar fat pad (IFP), also known as Hoffa’s fat pad, is an intracapsular, extrasynovial structure that fills the anterior knee compartment, and is richly vascularized and innervated. Its degree of innervation, the proportion of substance-P-containing fibres and close relationship to its posterior synovial lining implicates IFP pathologies as a source of infrapatellar knee pain. Though the precise function of the IFP is unknown, studies have shown that it may play a role in the biomechanics of the knee or act as a store for reparative cells after injury.Inflammation and fibrosis within the IFP, caused by trauma and/or surgery can lead to a variety of arthrofibrotic lesions including Hoffa’s disease, anterior interval scarring and infrapatellar contracture syndrome. Lesions or mass-like abnormalities rarely occur within the IFP, but their classification can be narrowed down by radiographical appearance.Clinically, patients with IFP pathology present with burning or aching infrapatellar anterior knee pain that can often be reproduced on physical exam with manoeuvres designed to produce impingement. Sagittal MRI is the most common imaging technique used to assess IFP pathology including fibrosis, inflammation, oedema, and mass-like lesions.IFP pathology is often successfully managed with physical therapy. Passive taping is used to unload or shorten an inflamed IFP, and closed chain quadriceps exercises can improve lower limb control and patellar congruence. Training of the gluteus medius and stretching the anterior hip may help to decrease internal rotation of the hip and valgus force at the knee. Gait training and avoiding hyperextension can also be used for long-term management. Injections within the IFP of local anaesthetic plus corticosteroids and IFP ablation with ultrasound guided alcohol injections have been successfully explored as treatments for IFP pain.IFP pathology refractory to physical therapy can be approached through a variety of operative treatments. Arthroscopic partial resection for IFP impingement and Hoffa’s disease has showed favourable results; however, total excision of the IFP performed concomitantly with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) resulted in worse results when compared with TKA alone. Arthroscopic debridement of IFP fibrosis has been successfully used to treat extension block following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and arthroscopic anterior interval release has been an effective treatment for pain associated with anterior interval scarring. Arthroscopic resection of infrapatellar plicae and denervation of the inferior pole of the patella have also been shown to be effective treatments for refractory infrapatellar pain.

Rehabilitation and Nonoperative Treatment of Patellar Instability

Patellofemoral instability can be a difficult condition for clinicians to manage. Differentiation needs to be made as to whether the problem is an acute injury where a traumatic incident has usually precipitated the dislocation or whether the problem is a recurrent instability where the patellofemoral joint is unstable during everyday activities. This review defines instability, discusses the factors affecting instability, and provides assessment procedures and nonoperative intervention strategies for the clinician.

2016 Patellofemoral pain consensus statement from the 4th International Patellofemoral Pain Research Retreat, Manchester. Part 1: Terminology, definitions, clinical examination, natural history, patellofemoral osteoarthritis and patient-reported outcome measures

Patellofemoral pain (PFP) typically presents as diffuse anterior knee pain, usually with activities such as squatting, running, stair ascent and descent. It is common in active individuals across the lifespan,1–4 and is a frequent cause for presentation at physiotherapy, general practice, orthopaedic and sports medicine clinics in particular.5 ,6 Its impact is profound, often reducing the ability of those with PFP to perform sporting, physical activity and work-related activities pain-free. Increasing evidence suggests that it is a recalcitrant condition, persisting for many years.7–9 In an attempt to share recent innovations, build on the first three successful biennial retreats and define the ‘state of the art’ for this common, impactful condition; the 4th International Patellofemoral Pain Research Retreat was convened. The 4th International Patellofemoral Research Retreat was held in Manchester, UK, over 3 days (September 2–4th, 2015). After undergoing peer-review for scientific merit and relevance to the retreat, 67 abstracts were accepted for the retreat (50 podium presentations, and 17 short presentations). The podium and short presentations were grouped into five categories; (1) PFP, (2) factors that influence PFP (3) the trunk and lower extremity (4) interventions and (5) systematic analyses. Three keynote speakers were chosen for their scientific contribution in the area of PFP. Professor Andrew Amis spoke on the biomechanics of the patellofemoral joint. Professor David Felson spoke on patellofemoral arthritis,10 and Dr Michael Ratleffs keynote theme was PFP in the adolescent patient.11 As part of the retreat, we held structured, whole-group discussions in order to develop consensus relating to the work presented at the meeting as well as evidence gathered from the literature. ### Consensus development process In our past three International Patellofemoral Research Retreats, we developed a consensus statement addressing different presentation categories.12–14 In Manchester in 2015, we revised the format. For the exercise and …

Effects of vastus medialis oblique retraining versus general quadriceps strengthening on vasti onset.

PURPOSE To compare the effects of vastus medialis oblique (VMO) motor control retraining (MCR) and quadriceps strengthening (QS) exercises on the onset timing of the medial (VMO) and lateral (vastus lateralis, VL) quadriceps muscle. METHODS This single-blind randomized controlled trial involved 60 currently pain-free individuals with a history of anterior knee pain and delayed (>10 ms) onset of VMO relative to VL during stair stepping. A blinded assessor took measures at baseline, immediately after 6 wk of treatment, and after an 8-wk follow-up. Both exercise programs involved weekly individual physiotherapy sessions with home exercises. The MCR program comprised specific VMO exercises incorporating EMG biofeedback, mostly in functional weight-bearing positions. The QS program comprised progressive-resistance inner range open kinetic chain exercises. The primary outcome was the latency between the onset of VMO EMG activity relative to that of VL during stair stepping measured using surface electrodes. RESULTS During stair ascent, there was a significant change immediately after the intervention in VMO-VL timing in the MCR group only (P = 0.04), but there was no significant difference in the change between groups. During stair descent, VMO-VL timing changed in both groups (P < 0.01), with the MCR group showing a greater change than the QS group (P = 0.02). At the completion of training, quadriceps strength was only improved in the QS group (all P < 0.001). At follow-up, VMO timing and quadriceps strength had improved in both groups compared with baseline (P < 0.01), but there was no difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS Although greater changes in motor control during stair descent and strength are induced by interventions that target each of these parameters in the short term, both parameters are similarly improved after the cessation of training, regardless of the target of the intervention.

Gluteal taping improves hip extension during stance phase of walking following stroke

The aim of this study was to determine whether gluteal taping on the affected side improved hip extension during stance phase of walking for persons following stroke. Fifteen subjects who had suffered a stroke months to years previously resulting in mild to moderate gait impairments participated in the study. Their gait was measured under control, sham, and gluteal taping conditions, in random order. For each condition, subjects walked at a self-selected and a fast speed. Hip angle relative to that obtained during quiet standing, step length, stride length and walking velocity were measured. Hip extension increased significantly with gluteal taping (p < 0.05) for both walking speeds at late stance phase of walk compared to sham taping and control. The mean absolute difference between gluteal and control conditions for self-selected velocity was 14.2 degrees (95% CI 8.6 to 19.8) whereas the difference between sham and control conditions was 2.0 degrees (95% CI -2.0 to 6.0). Also, for both speeds, step length on the unaffected side increased significantly with gluteal taping compared with either the control or placebo conditions. The absolute difference between gluteal taping and control conditions at self-selected velocity was 3.3 cm (95% CI 2.2 to 4.3) and between sham and control conditions was 0.6 cm (95% CI -0.8 to 1.9). Affected step length and walking velocity, however, remained unchanged. Lastly, there was no significant difference between the control and sham taping condition for any of the measured variables. Gluteal taping may be a useful adjunct to current rehabilitation gait training strategies.