Patellofemoral joint stress during incline and decline running

Per-step and cumulative load at three common running injury locations: The effect of speed, surface gradient, and cadence

Understanding how loading and damage on common running injury locations changes across speeds, surface gradients, and step frequencies may inform training programs and help guide progression/rehabilitation after injuries. However, research investigating tissue loading and damage in running is limited and fragmented across different studies, thereby impairing comparison between conditions and injury locations. This study examined per-step peak load and impulse, cumulative impulse, and cumulative weighted impulse (hereafter referred to as cumulative damage) on three common injury locations (patellofemoral joint, tibia, and Achilles tendon) across different speeds, surface gradients, and cadences. We also explored how cumulative damage in the different tissues changed across conditions relative to each other. Nineteen runners ran at five speeds (2.78, 3.0, 3.33, 4.0, 5.0 m s-1 ), and four gradients (-6, -3, +3, +6°), and three cadences (preferred, ±10 steps min-1 ) each at one speed. Patellofemoral, tibial, and Achilles tendon loading and damage were estimated from kinematic and kinetic data and compared between conditions using a linear mixed model. Increases in running speed increased patellofemoral cumulative damage, with nonsignificant increases for the tibia and Achilles tendon. Increases in cadence reduced damage to all tissues. Uphill running increased tibial and Achilles tendon, but decreased patellofemoral damage, while downhill running showed the reverse pattern. Per-step and cumulative loading, and cumulative loading and cumulative damage indices diverged across conditions. Moreover, changes in running speed, surface gradient, and step frequency lead to disproportional changes in relative cumulative damage on different structures. Methodological and practical implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.

The non-invasive evaluation technique of patellofemoral joint stress: a systematic literature review

Introduction: Patellofemoral joint stress (PFJS) is an important parameter for understanding the mechanism of patellofemoral joint pain, preventing patellofemoral joint injury, and evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of PFP rehabilitation programs. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and categorize the non-invasive technique to evaluate the PFJS. Methods: Literature searches were conducted from January 2000 to October 2022 in electronic databases, namely, PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO (Medline, SPORTDiscus). This review includes studies that evaluated the patellofemoral joint reaction force (PJRF) or PFJS, with participants including both healthy individuals and those with patellofemoral joint pain, as well as cadavers with no organic changes. The study design includes cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials. The JBI quality appraisal criteria tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Results: In total, 5016 articles were identified in the database research and the citation network, and 69 studies were included in the review. Discussion: Researchers are still working to improve the accuracy of evaluation for PFJS by using a personalized model and optimizing quadriceps muscle strength calculations. In theory, the evaluation method of combining advanced computational and biplane fluoroscopy techniques has high accuracy in evaluating PFJS. The method should be further developed to establish the "gold standard" for PFJS evaluation. In practical applications, selecting appropriate methods and approaches based on theoretical considerations and ecological validity is essential.

Lower Extremity Support Moment and Distribution of Joint Moments during Sloped Running

The existing literature often exhibits inconsistent findings regarding lower extremity kinetics during sloped running, likely due to high variability of typical individual joint moments between and within runners. A better understanding of the kinetic effects of sloped running may be achieved by comparing the support moment and joint contributions among level, upslope, and downslope running. Twenty recreational runners (10 females) ran on three different conditions (level, 6° upslope and 6° downslope). Total support moment and joint contributions of the hip, knee, and ankle joints were compared among the three slope conditions using a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures and post-hoc pairwise comparisons. Our results showed that peak total support moment was highest during upslope running and was lowest during downslope running. The joint contribution to total support moment was similar in upslope and level running where the ankle joint has highest contribution followed by the knee and hip joints. During downslope running, highest knee joint contribution but least ankle and hip joint contributions were found when compared to level and upslope running.

Leaning the Trunk Forward Decreases Patellofemoral Joint Loading During Uneven Running

ABSTRACT

AminiAghdam, S, Epro, G, James, D, and Karamanidis, K. Leaning the trunk forward decreases patellofemoral joint loading during uneven running. J Strength Cond Res 36(12): 3345-3351, 2022-Although decline surfaces or a more upright trunk posture during running increase the patellofemoral joint (PFJ) contact force and stress, less is known about these kinetic parameters under simultaneous changes to the running posture and surface height. This study aimed to investigate the interaction between Step (10-cm drop-step and level step) and Posture (trunk angle from the vertical: self-selected, ∼15°; backward, ∼0°; forward, ∼25°) on PFJ kinetics (primary outcomes) and knee kinematics and kinetics as well as hip and ankle kinetics (secondary outcomes) in 12 runners at 3.5 ms -1 . Two-way repeated measures analyses of variance ( α = 0.05) revealed no step-related changes in peak PFJ kinetics across running postures; however, a decreased peak knee flexion angle and increased joint stiffness in the drop-step only during backward trunk-leaning. The Step main effect revealed significantly increased peak hip and ankle extension moments in the drop-step, signifying pronounced mechanical demands on these joints. The Posture main effect revealed significantly higher and lower PFJ kinetics during backward and forward trunk-leaning, respectively, when compared with the self-selected condition. Forward trunk-leaning yielded significantly lower peak knee extension moments and higher hip extension moments, whereas the opposite effects occurred with backward trunk-leaning. Overall, changes to the running posture, but not to the running surface height, influenced the PFJ kinetics. In line with the previously reported efficacy of forward trunk-leaning in mitigating PFJ stress while even or decline running, this technique, through a distal-to-proximal joint load redistribution, also seems effective during running on surfaces with height perturbations.

May the force be with you: understanding how patellofemoral joint reaction force compares across different activities and physical interventions-a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and synthesise patellofemoral joint reaction force (PFJRF) in healthy individuals and those with patellofemoral pain and osteoarthritis (OA), during everyday activities, therapeutic exercises and with physical interventions (eg, foot orthotics, footwear, taping, bracing).

DESIGN

A systematic review with meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, SportDiscus and Cochrane Library databases were searched.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Observational and interventional studies reporting PFJRF during everyday activities, therapeutic exercises, and physical interventions.

RESULTS

In healthy individuals, the weighted average of mean (±SD) peak PFJRF for everyday activities were: walking 0.9±0.4 body weight (BW), stair ascent 3.2±0.7 BW, stair descent 2.8±0.5 BW and running 5.2±1.2 BW. In those with patellofemoral pain, peak PFJRF were: walking 0.8±0.2 BW, stair ascent 2.5±0.5 BW, stair descent 2.6±0.5 BW, running 4.1±0.9 BW. Only single studies reported peak PFJRF during everyday activities in individuals with patellofemoral OA/articular cartilage defects (walking 1.3±0.5 BW, stair ascent 1.6±0.4 BW, stair descent 1.0±0.5 BW). The PFJRF was reported for many different exercises and physical interventions; however, considerable variability precluded any pooled estimates.

SUMMARY

Everyday activities and exercises involving larger knee flexion (eg, squatting) expose the patellofemoral joint to higher PFJRF than those involving smaller knee flexion (eg, walking). There were no discernable differences in peak PFJRF during everyday activities between healthy individuals and those with patellofemoral pain/OA. The information on PFJRF may be used to select appropriate variations of exercises and physical interventions.

Comparisons of trunk and knee mechanics during various speeds of treadmill running between runners with and without patellofemoral pain: a preliminary study

[Purpose] To determine if runners with patellofemoral pain (PFP) exhibit higher patellofemoral joint (PFJ) stress and trunk extension compared to pain-free runners during treadmill running. [Participants and Methods] Twelve runners (7 with PFP and 5 pain-free) participated in this study. Participants ran at 3 different running conditions: self-selected, fast (120% of self-selected), and slow (80% of self-selected) speeds. Kinematics and kinetics of trunk and lower extremities were obtained. PFJ stress, PFJ reaction force, and PFJ contact area were determined using a biomechanical model. Two-factor ANOVAs with repeated measures were used to compare outcome variables between 3 speeds and between 2 groups. [Results] There was no significant difference in peak PFJ stress between groups across the 3 speeds. Peak PFJ stress was lowest during slow running compared to fast and self-selected running speed conditions across both groups. No significant difference was found in trunk flexion angle, PFJ reaction force, or PFJ contact area between groups across the 3 speeds. [Conclusion] Runners with and without PFP exhibited similar peak PFJ stress and trunk flexion angle during treadmill running. This preliminary work does not support the theory that reduced trunk flexion during running contributes to increased PFJ stress in runners with PFP.