Does the change in Q angle magnitude in unilateral stance differ when comparing asymptomatic individuals to those with patellofemoral pain?

Frontal plane projection angle predicts patellofemoral pain: Prospective study in male military cadets

BACKGROUND

Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is a major source of knee pain. Identifying who may develop PFP is of paramount importance.

PURPOSE

To assess whether Frontal plane projection angles (FPPA) and hand held dynamometry (HHD) strength measures can predict development of PFP.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective evaluation of individuals undertaking a military training programme.

METHODS

Male military recruits were enrolled and prospectively followed up from enrolment to completion of 12-weeks training. Lower limb kinematics (FPPA, Q-angle, hip adduction angle, knee flexion, ankle dorsiflexion, and rearfoot eversion angle) measured during running, single leg squatting (SLS), and single leg landing (SLL) and isometric muscle strength of hip abductors and knee extensors.

RESULTS

Body mass, hip abductor muscle strength, Q-angle during SLS and SLL, FPPA during SLL all significantly different between the PFP and non-injured groups and predicted PFP, highest predictor variable was FPPA during SLL (Odds Ratio = 1.13, P = 0.01). A FPPA≥5.2° during SLL predicting PFP with a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 70%.

CONCLUSION

Participants who developed PFP had a number of physical factors significantly different than the non-injured group, most predictive was a larger FPPA during SLL, with angles greater than 5.2° associated with a 2.2x greater risk.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Assessing FPPA during SLL could be used to determine who was predisposed to PFP.

Clinical Significance of the Static and Dynamic Q-angle

Q-angle represents the resultant force vector of the quadriceps and patellar tendons acting on the patella. An increased Q-angle has been considered a risk factor for many disorders and injuries. This literature review challenges the clinical value of static Q-angle and recommends a more dynamic movement evaluation for making clinical decisions. Although there are many articles about static Q-angle, few have assessed the value of dynamic Q-angle. We searched Scopus and PubMed (until September 2021) to identify and summarize English-language articles evaluating static and dynamic Q-angle, including articles for dynamic knee valgus (DKV) and frontal plane projection angle. We also used textbooks and articles from references to related articles. Although static Q-angle measurement is used systematically in clinical practice for critical clinical decisions, its interpretation and clinical translation present fundamental and intractable limitations. To date, it is acceptable that mechanisms that cause patellofemoral pain and athletic injuries have a stronger correlation with dynamic loading conditions. Dynamic Q-angle has the following three dynamic elements: frontal plane (hip adduction, knee abduction), transverse plane (hip internal rotation and tibia external rotation), and patella behavior. Measuring one out of three elements (frontal plane) illustrates only one-third of this concept. Static Q-angle lacks biomechanical meaning and utility for dynamic activities. Although DKV is accompanied by hip and tibia rotation, it remains a frontal plane measurement, which provides no information about the transverse plane and patella movement. However, given the acceptable reliability and the better differentiation capability, DKV assessment is recommended in clinical practice.

Lower extremity rotational deformities and patellofemoral alignment parameters in patients with anterior knee pain

PURPOSE

Anterior knee pain is a common musculoskeletal condition amongst young adult population. Lower extremity structural factors, such as increased femoral anteversion and lateral tibial torsion, may contribute to patellofemoral malalignment and anterior knee pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the lower extremity structural factors and related patellofemoral alignment parameters that play a role in the aetiology of anterior knee pain.

METHODS

This study involved three groups: patients with unilateral symptomatic knees (n = 35), asymptomatic contralateral knees in the same patients and a control group (n = 40). All subjects were physically examined, and Q-angles were measured. The lower extremities of all subjects were imaged by a very low-dose CT scan, and the symptomatic knees of patients were compared with their asymptomatic contralateral knees and with the healthy knees of controls regarding femoral anteversion, tibial torsion, sulcus angle, patellar tilt angle and lateral patellar displacement.

RESULTS

Regarding the Q-angle, femoral anteversion and lateral tibial torsion, no significant differences were found between the symptomatic and asymptomatic knees, whereas significant differences were found between the symptomatic knees and controls. The symptomatic group demonstrated significantly greater sulcus angle only in 30° of knee flexion than did the controls.

CONCLUSION

Patients with unilateral anterior knee pain may have similar morphology at their contralateral asymptomatic lower extremity, and different morphology compared with healthy controls. Lower extremity rotational deformities may increase the risk of anterior knee pain; however, these deformities alone are not sufficient to cause knee pain, and may be predisposing factor rather than a direct aetiology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic study, Level III.