No abstract

Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is one of the most common lower extremity conditions seen in orthopaedic practice. The mission of the second International Patellofemoral Pain Research Retreat was to bring together scientists and clinicians from around the world who are conducting research aimed at understanding the factors that contribute to the development and, consequently, the treatment of PFP. The format of the 2.5-day retreat included 2 keynote presentations, interspersed with 6 podium and 4 poster sessions. An important element of the retreat was the development of consensus statements that summarized the state of the research in each of the 4 presentation categories. In this supplement, you will find the consensus documents from the meeting, as well as the keynote addresses, schedule, and platform and poster presentation abstracts. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012;42(6):A1–A54. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.0301

No abstract

Context: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is the most common injury in running and jumping athletes. Randomized controlled trials suggest that incorporating hip and core strengthening (HIP) with knee-focused rehabilitation (KNEE) improves PFP outcomes. However, no randomized controlled trials have, to our knowledge, directly compared HIP and KNEE programs.Objective: To compare PFP pain, function, hip-and kneemuscle strength, and core endurance between KNEE and HIP protocols after 6 weeks of rehabilitation. We hypothesized greater improvements in (1) pain and function, (2) hip strength and core endurance for patients with PFP involved in the HIP protocol, and (3) knee strength for patients involved in the KNEE protocol.Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial. Setting: Four clinical research laboratories in Calgary, Alberta; Chicago, Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Augusta, Georgia.Patients or Other Participants: Of 721 patients with PFP screened, 199 (27.6%) met the inclusion criteria (66 men [31.2%], 133 women [66.8%], age ¼ 29.0 6 7.1 years, height ¼ 170.4 6 9.4 cm, weight ¼ 67.6 6 13.5 kg).Intervention(s): Patients with PFP were randomly assigned to a 6-week KNEE or HIP protocol.Main Outcome Measure(s): Primary variables were selfreported visual analog scale and Anterior Knee Pain Scale measures, which were conducted weekly. Secondary variables were muscle strength and core endurance measured at baseline and at 6 weeks.Results: Compared with baseline, both the visual analog scale and the Anterior Knee Pain Scale improved for patients with PFP in both the HIP and KNEE protocols (P , .001), but the visual analog scale scores for those in the HIP protocol were reduced 1 week earlier than in the KNEE group. Both groups increased in strength (P , .001), but those in the HIP protocol gained more in hip-abductor (P ¼ .01) and -extensor (P ¼ .01) strength and posterior core endurance (P ¼ .05) compared with the KNEE group.Conclusions: Both the HIP and KNEE rehabilitation protocols produced improvements in PFP, function, and strength over 6 weeks. Although outcomes were similar, the HIP protocol resulted in earlier resolution of pain and greater overall gains in strength compared with the KNEE protocol.

ports medicine clinicians commonly see athletes who have sustained a lower extremity injury or surgical intervention. The ultimate goal of rehabilitation is to return the athlete to the highest functional level in the most efficient manner. Athletes must demonstrate normal range of motion, strength, proprioception, and coordination before safely returning to the playing field. Often, clinicians use impairments such as range of motion goniometric measurements, manual muscle testing, girth measurements, and isokinetic testing to assess when the athlete can safely resume unrestricted sporting activities. Additional information on functional performance would enhance the clinical decision-making process. Instruments used in assessing function include a subjective knee score questionnaire (10,15) and lower extremity functional performance testing.In an attempt to quantify "function," researchers have designed various functional performance tests which simulate the stresses about the knee encountered during athletic activities (9). Functional performance tests cannot detect specific abnormalities; however, they are useful in assessing lower limb function. According to Barber et a1 (2), their importance resulted from the fact that lower extremity function encompasses many variables, such as pain, swelling, crepitus, neuromuscular coordination, muscular strength, and joint stability. Furthermore, func- were .96, .95, and .96, and SEMs were 4.56 cm, 15.44 cm, and 15.95 cm, respectively,