RUNNERS WITH PATELLOFEMORAL PAIN HAVE ALTERED BIOMECHANICS, WHICH INTERVENTIONS CAN ALTER:
A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.
Neal BS 1-2, Gallie R 1, Barton CB 1-4, Morrissey D 1,5*.
1. Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom.
2. Pure Sports Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
3. Complete Sports Care, Melbourne, Australia.
4. Lower Extremity and Gait Studies Program, Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
5. Physiotherapy Department, Bart’s Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
* NIHR Disclaimer: Dr Morrissey is part funded by the NIHR/HEE Senior Clinical Lecturer scheme. This abstract presents independent research part-funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
Introduction: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) in runners is reported to be asscoiated with several biomechanical (kinetic, kinematic, muscle function) factors. This review (i) synthesises biomechanical studies of individuals with and without PFP in runners and (ii) defines the outcomes of interventions targetting observed biomechanical deficits.
Methods: Medline, CINAHL, Embase and SportDiscus were searched for case-control and intervention studies of runners with PFP. Two assessors graded study quality and data was pooled where possible to aid in determination of levels of evidence.
Results: 27 studies were included (20 case-control and 7 intervention). PFP was moderately associated with increased peak hip adduction (standardized mean difference (SMD), confidence interval (CI) for all) (0.41, 0.13-0.70), increased peak hip internal rotation (0.44, 0.18-0.69) and increased peak contralateral pelvic drop (0.85, 0.50-1.19). Very limited evidence also identified a prospective link between increased peak hip adduction and PFP development (0.90, 0.38-1.42). No association was identified for increased peak rearfoot eversion (0.03, -0.41-0.35), which matches significant but very limited prospective findings (-0.53, -1.05 to -0.01). Intervention studies showed significant but limited evidence that orthoses reduced peak rearfoot eversion (0.78, 0.08-1.48) and running gait re-education reduced peak hip adduction (2.10, 1.30-2.91).
Conclusion: The strong association between PFP and both greater peak hip adduction and internal rotation suggests interventions should address kinematics of the hip in runners with PFP, supported by very limited evidence of increased hip adduction as a risk factor. Limited evidence indicates running gait re-education can induce favorable kinematic change at the hip and longer tem studies are recommended.