PATELLOFEMORAL PAIN SYNDROME

Author Method Finestone (1991) (8) N=59

Follow up 14 weeks, 3 groups: 1) Treatment with simple elastic sleeve

2) Treatment with a knee sleeve with silicone patellar ring 3) No treatment

Kannus (1992) (9) N=53

Follow up at 6 weeks and 6 months, 2 groups:

1) Intra articular injections of GAGPS*1 basic conservative treatment

2) Placebo intra-articular injections of

saline and conservative treatment In the treatment of PFPS

Eng (1993) (10) N=10

Patients with PFPS and forefoot varus or calcaneal valgus, 2 groups:

1) Exercise programme and soft foot orthotics 2) Exercise programme only

Kowall ( 1996) (11) N=25

Follow up 4 weeks, 2 groups:

1) VAS*2

2) Isokinetic strength 3) EMG activity of

1) Patellar taping and twice weekly 4-week quadriceps muscles course of physical therapy. 2) Twice weekly 4 week course of physical therapy

Thomee (1997) (12) N=40

Follow up 3 & 12 months, 2 groups:

1) Physical activity level Both groups improved by Tegner and Lysholm scale

1) Education and 12 week isometric muscle 2) Pain: VAS*2 contraction programme with pain monitoring system

pain score 3) Muscle function: using

2) Education and 12 week eccentric muscle isometric, concentric and contractions with pain monitoring system eccentric extension torques on a dynamometer, EMG activity recordings and vertical jump test

Timm 1998 (13) N=300

Follow-up 4 weeks, 3 groups:

1) Taping and exercise group

2) Progressive resistance brace during activities of daily living 3) No treatment (control)

Harrison 1999 (14) N=113

Follow up 4 weeks and 12 months, 3 groups:

1) Eccentric quadriceps exercises with biofeedback plus mobilisations

2) Standard quadriceps exercises and

patellar mobilisations 3) Home programme of standard exercises

12 SportEX 1) VAS*2

3) Progressive resistance braces significantly reduced 4) PFP and PF incongruence

1) Pain and function

Group 1 made significant improvements in pain and function compared with group 2 but did not differ from group 3 with a home exercise programme

Patellar taping reduced

2) Kujala functional knee pain but not congruence score

and other

significantly but there was no difference between groups

1) VAS*2

Both treatment and control group had a significant improvement in pain. The improvement in the exercise and orthotics group was significantly better

No beneficial effect of adding patellar taping to a standard exercise programme

1) Quadriceps strength 2) Visual analogue scale of pain (VAS)*2

& 3) Lysholm and Tegner scores

4) Functional tests

Neither GAGPS nor saline resulted in significant improvement beyond the good results achieved by basic conservative treatment

Outcome measures 1) Pain rating scale

Results

Neither intervention group had a significant benefit over the other treatment group