Patellofemoral pain affects a large proportion of the population, from adolescents to older adults, and carries a substantial personal and societal burden. An international group of scientists and clinicians meets biennially at the International Patellofemoral Research Retreat to share research findings related to patellofemoral pain conditions and develop consensus statements using best practice methods. This consensus statement, from the 5th International Patellofemoral Research Retreat held in Australia in July 2017, focuses on exercise therapy and physical interventions (eg, orthoses, taping and manual therapy) for patellofemoral pain. Literature searches were conducted to identify new systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the 2016 Consensus Statement. The methodological quality of included systematic reviews and RCTs was graded using AMSTAR and PEDro, respectively. Evidence-based statements were developed from included papers and presented to a panel of 41 patellofemoral pain experts for consensus discussion and voting. Recommendations from the expert panel support the use of exercise therapy (especially the combination of hip-focused and knee-focused exercises), combined interventions and foot orthoses to improve pain and/or function in people with patellofemoral pain. The use of patellofemoral, knee or lumbar mobilisations in isolation, or electrophysical agents, is not recommended. There is uncertainty regarding the use of patellar taping/bracing, acupuncture/dry needling, manual soft tissue techniques, blood flow restriction training and gait retraining in patients with patellofemoral pain. In 2017, we launched the International Patellofemoral Research Network (www.ipfrn.org) to consolidate and grow our patellofemoral research community, facilitate collaboration and disseminate patellofemoral pain knowledge to clinicians and the general public. The 6th International Patellofemoral Research Retreat will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, in October 2019.

PROSPERO systematic review protocol registration number CRD4201400882 2.

Summary estimates of MRI osteoarthritis feature prevalence among asymptomatic uninjured knees were 4%-14% in adults aged <40 years to 19%-43% in adults ≥40 years. These imaging findings should be interpreted in the context of clinical presentations and considered in clinical decision-making.

There is relatively little research specifically investigating patellofemoral joint osteoarthritis (PFJ OA). In particular, the source of pain in PFJ OA has not been established. One structure that may be an important contributor is the infrapatellar fat pad (IPFP). This cross-sectional study aimed to: (1) compare IPFP volume in individuals with and without PFJ OA and (2) assess the relationship between IPFP volume and pain in individuals with PFJ OA. Thirty-five participants with symptomatic and radiographic PFJ OA and 11 asymptomatic controls with no radiographic signs of OA were recruited. IPFP volume was measured in both groups from magnetic resonance images, and pain in the PFJ OA group was determined using the pain subscale of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-pain). The PFJ OA group had 23.6 % greater IPFP volume than the control group (p = 0.04). After the inclusion of covariates, IPFP volume remained 19.6 % greater in the PFJ OA group (p = 0.03). IPFP volume explained 20.1 % of the variance in KOOS-pain in the PFJ OA group, with a larger IPFP being associated with worse pain (p < 0.01). Individuals with PFJ OA had a larger IPFP than controls, and IPFP volume was directly related to PFJ OA pain. These data suggest a role for the IPFP in PFJ OA and highlight a need for further investigation into the casual relationship between IPFP and PFJ changes.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: Conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the past year evaluating rehabilitation for people with osteoarthritis, and provide narrative synthesis of findings focused on core recommended treatments for osteoarthritis (exercise, education, biomechanical interventions, weight loss). Design: A comprehensive search strategy was used to search PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases (16 th May 2017 to 22 nd March 2018). Search terms included 'osteoarthritis', 'rehabilitation', 'systematic review', and 'randomised controlled trial'. Inclusion criteria were: (1) RCT, or systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs); (2) human participants with osteoarthritis (any joint); (3) evaluation of rehabilitation intervention; and (4) at least one patient-reported measure. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool (systematic reviews) and PEDro rating scale (RCTs). Narrative synthesis mapped findings to core recommendations from existing osteoarthritis clinical guidelines. Results: From 1994 records, 13 systematic reviews and 36 RCTs were included. 73% of these evaluated knee osteoarthritis (36 studies). The remaining studies evaluated hand osteoarthritis (6 studies), hip, hip/ knee and general osteoarthritis (each 2 studies), and neck osteoarthritis (1 study). Exercise was the most common intervention evaluated (31%). Updated recommendations for exercise prescription and preliminary guidance for psychological interventions are provided. Conclusion: Level 1 and 2 osteoarthritis rehabilitation literature continues to be dominated by knee osteoarthritis studies. Consistent with current clinical guidelines, exercise should be a core treatment for osteoarthritis, but future studies should ensure that exercise programs follow published dose guidelines. There is a clear need for research on rehabilitation for hip, hand, foot/ankle, shoulder and spine osteoarthritis.