RESUMO
CONTEXT: People with patellofemoral pain (PFP) may have lower performance during the forward step-down and single-leg hop with their painful (unilateral complaints) or most painful (bilateral complaints) limb when compared to pain-free controls. Yet, no study has investigated the appropriateness of using the pain-free/less painful limb as a reference standard in clinical practice or whether deficits might be present depending on the laterality of pain. OBJECTIVE: To compare performance scores and proportion of side-to-side limb symmetry during the forward step-down and single-leg hop tests among people with unilateral and bilateral PFP, and pain-free controls. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two young adults (18-35 years old) with unilateral PFP, 72 with bilateral PFP, and 76 controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Group-by-limb interactions on the performance during the step- down (repetitions) and hop test (distance [cm] normalized by the limb length) were investigated using a repeated-measures analysis of covariance controlling for sex. Pairwise comparisons were interpreted using effect sizes. A Chi-square test was used to compare the proportion of symmetry/asymmetry (cutoff point of ≥ 90% for symmetries indices) across groups and tests. RESULTS: Main effects for groups (small-to-medium effects) but not limbs indicated lower performance of both limbs of individuals with unilateral and bilateral PFP compared to controls during forward step-downs and single-leg hop tests. No significant differences for the proportion of symmetry/asymmetry were identified across groups (p ≥ 0.05), which further suggests an impaired physical performance of the contralateral limb. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate bilateral deficits in the physical performance of people with unilateral and bilateral PFP when compared to pain-free controls during the forward step-down and single-leg hop tests. Limb symmetries indices greater than 90% should be interpreted with caution, as they may overstate the physical performance by not assuming bilateral deficits.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The trunk is the foundation for transfer and dissipation of forces throughout the lower extremity kinetic chain. Individuals with knee disorders may employ trunk biomechanical adaptations to accommodate forces at the knee or compensate for muscle weakness. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the literature comparing trunk biomechanics between individuals with knee disorders and injury-free controls. METHODS: Five databases were searched from inception to January 2022. Observational studies comparing trunk kinematics or kinetics during weight-bearing tasks (e.g., stair negotiation, walking, running, landings) between individuals with knee disorders and controls were included. Meta-analyses for each knee disorder were performed. Outcome-level certainty was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), and evidence gap maps were created. RESULTS: A total of 81 studies investigating trunk biomechanics across six different knee disorders were included (i.e., knee osteoarthritis [OA], total knee arthroplasty [TKA], patellofemoral pain [PFP], patellar tendinopathy [PT], anterior cruciate ligament deficiency [ACLD], and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction [ACLR]). Individuals with knee OA presented greater trunk flexion during squatting (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.58-1.18) and stepping tasks (SMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.13-.99); ipsilateral and contralateral trunk lean during walking (SMD 1.36; 95% CI 0.60-2.11) and sit-to-stand (SMD 1.49; 95% CI 0.90-2.08), respectively. Greater trunk flexion during landing tasks in individuals with PFP (SMD 0.56; 95% CI 0.01-1.12) or ACLR (SMD 0.48; 95% CI 0.21-.75) and greater ipsilateral trunk lean during single-leg squat in individuals with PFP (SMD 1.01; 95% CI 0.33-1.70) were also identified. No alterations in trunk kinematics of individuals with TKA were identified. Evidence gap maps outlined the lack of investigations for individuals with PT or ACLD, as well as for trunk kinetics across knee disorders. CONCLUSION: Individuals with knee OA, PFP, or ACLR present with altered trunk kinematics in the sagittal and frontal planes. The findings of this review support the assessment of trunk biomechanics in these individuals in order to identify possible targets for rehabilitation and avoidance strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019129257.