Strengthening of the hip and core versus knee muscles for the treatment of patellofemoral pain: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

Reed Ferber, Lori Bolgla, Jennifer E. Earl-Boehm, Carolyn Emery, Karrie Hamstra-Wright

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

47 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is the most common injury in running and jumping athletes. Randomized controlled trials suggest that incorporating hip and core strengthening (HIP) with knee-focused rehabilitation (KNEE) improves PFP outcomes. However, no randomized controlled trials have, to our knowledge, directly compared HIP and KNEE programs. Objective: To compare PFP pain, function, hip- and knee-muscle strength, and core endurance between KNEE and HIP protocols after 6 weeks of rehabilitation. We hypothesized greater improvements in (1) pain and function, (2) hip strength and core endurance for patients with PFP involved in the HIP protocol, and (3) knee strength for patients involved in the KNEE protocol. Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial. Setting: Four clinical research laboratories in Calgary, Alberta; Chicago, Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Augusta, Georgia. Patients or Other Participants: Of 721 patients with PFP screened, 199 (27.6%) met the inclusion criteria (66 men [31.2%], 133 women [66.8%], age = 29.0 ± 7.1 years, height = 170.4 ± 9.4 cm, weight = 67.6 ± 13.5 kg). Intervention(s): Patients with PFP were randomly assigned to a 6-week KNEE or HIP protocol. Main Outcome Measure(s): Primary variables were selfreported visual analog scale and Anterior Knee Pain Scale measures, which were conducted weekly. Secondary variables were muscle strength and core endurance measured at baseline and at 6 weeks. Results: Compared with baseline, both the visual analog scale and the Anterior Knee Pain Scale improved for patients with PFP in both the HIP and KNEE protocols (P < .001), but the visual analog scale scores for those in the HIP protocol were reduced 1 week earlier than in the KNEE group. Both groups increased in strength (P < .001), but those in the HIP protocol gained more in hip-abductor (P = .01) and -extensor (P = .01) strength and posterior core endurance (P = .05) compared with the KNEE group. Conclusions: Both the HIP and KNEE rehabilitation protocols produced improvements in PFP, function, and strength over 6 weeks. Although outcomes were similar, the HIP protocol resulted in earlier resolution of pain and greater overall gains in strength compared with the KNEE protocol.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)366-377
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Athletic Training
Volume50
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

Hip
Knee
Randomized Controlled Trials
Pain
Muscles
Therapeutics
Visual Analog Scale
Rehabilitation
Muscle Strength
Alberta
Athletes
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Weights and Measures

Keywords

  • Anterior knee pain
  • Clinical trial
  • Knee rehabilitation
  • Outcomes assessment
  • Patella

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Strengthening of the hip and core versus knee muscles for the treatment of patellofemoral pain : A multicenter randomized controlled trial. / Ferber, Reed; Bolgla, Lori; Earl-Boehm, Jennifer E.; Emery, Carolyn; Hamstra-Wright, Karrie.

In: Journal of Athletic Training, Vol. 50, No. 4, 01.01.2015, p. 366-377.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ferber, Reed ; Bolgla, Lori ; Earl-Boehm, Jennifer E. ; Emery, Carolyn ; Hamstra-Wright, Karrie. / Strengthening of the hip and core versus knee muscles for the treatment of patellofemoral pain : A multicenter randomized controlled trial. In: Journal of Athletic Training. 2015 ; Vol. 50, No. 4. pp. 366-377.
@article{ba2520dec6b54479b587c63caa9d2ed5,
title = "Strengthening of the hip and core versus knee muscles for the treatment of patellofemoral pain: A multicenter randomized controlled trial",
abstract = "Context: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is the most common injury in running and jumping athletes. Randomized controlled trials suggest that incorporating hip and core strengthening (HIP) with knee-focused rehabilitation (KNEE) improves PFP outcomes. However, no randomized controlled trials have, to our knowledge, directly compared HIP and KNEE programs. Objective: To compare PFP pain, function, hip- and knee-muscle strength, and core endurance between KNEE and HIP protocols after 6 weeks of rehabilitation. We hypothesized greater improvements in (1) pain and function, (2) hip strength and core endurance for patients with PFP involved in the HIP protocol, and (3) knee strength for patients involved in the KNEE protocol. Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial. Setting: Four clinical research laboratories in Calgary, Alberta; Chicago, Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Augusta, Georgia. Patients or Other Participants: Of 721 patients with PFP screened, 199 (27.6{\%}) met the inclusion criteria (66 men [31.2{\%}], 133 women [66.8{\%}], age = 29.0 ± 7.1 years, height = 170.4 ± 9.4 cm, weight = 67.6 ± 13.5 kg). Intervention(s): Patients with PFP were randomly assigned to a 6-week KNEE or HIP protocol. Main Outcome Measure(s): Primary variables were selfreported visual analog scale and Anterior Knee Pain Scale measures, which were conducted weekly. Secondary variables were muscle strength and core endurance measured at baseline and at 6 weeks. Results: Compared with baseline, both the visual analog scale and the Anterior Knee Pain Scale improved for patients with PFP in both the HIP and KNEE protocols (P < .001), but the visual analog scale scores for those in the HIP protocol were reduced 1 week earlier than in the KNEE group. Both groups increased in strength (P < .001), but those in the HIP protocol gained more in hip-abductor (P = .01) and -extensor (P = .01) strength and posterior core endurance (P = .05) compared with the KNEE group. Conclusions: Both the HIP and KNEE rehabilitation protocols produced improvements in PFP, function, and strength over 6 weeks. Although outcomes were similar, the HIP protocol resulted in earlier resolution of pain and greater overall gains in strength compared with the KNEE protocol.",
keywords = "Anterior knee pain, Clinical trial, Knee rehabilitation, Outcomes assessment, Patella",
author = "Reed Ferber and Lori Bolgla and Earl-Boehm, {Jennifer E.} and Carolyn Emery and Karrie Hamstra-Wright",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.70",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "366--377",
journal = "Journal of Athletic Training",
issn = "1062-6050",
publisher = "National Athletic Trainers' Association Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Strengthening of the hip and core versus knee muscles for the treatment of patellofemoral pain

T2 - A multicenter randomized controlled trial

AU - Ferber, Reed

AU - Bolgla, Lori

AU - Earl-Boehm, Jennifer E.

AU - Emery, Carolyn

AU - Hamstra-Wright, Karrie

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Context: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is the most common injury in running and jumping athletes. Randomized controlled trials suggest that incorporating hip and core strengthening (HIP) with knee-focused rehabilitation (KNEE) improves PFP outcomes. However, no randomized controlled trials have, to our knowledge, directly compared HIP and KNEE programs. Objective: To compare PFP pain, function, hip- and knee-muscle strength, and core endurance between KNEE and HIP protocols after 6 weeks of rehabilitation. We hypothesized greater improvements in (1) pain and function, (2) hip strength and core endurance for patients with PFP involved in the HIP protocol, and (3) knee strength for patients involved in the KNEE protocol. Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial. Setting: Four clinical research laboratories in Calgary, Alberta; Chicago, Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Augusta, Georgia. Patients or Other Participants: Of 721 patients with PFP screened, 199 (27.6%) met the inclusion criteria (66 men [31.2%], 133 women [66.8%], age = 29.0 ± 7.1 years, height = 170.4 ± 9.4 cm, weight = 67.6 ± 13.5 kg). Intervention(s): Patients with PFP were randomly assigned to a 6-week KNEE or HIP protocol. Main Outcome Measure(s): Primary variables were selfreported visual analog scale and Anterior Knee Pain Scale measures, which were conducted weekly. Secondary variables were muscle strength and core endurance measured at baseline and at 6 weeks. Results: Compared with baseline, both the visual analog scale and the Anterior Knee Pain Scale improved for patients with PFP in both the HIP and KNEE protocols (P < .001), but the visual analog scale scores for those in the HIP protocol were reduced 1 week earlier than in the KNEE group. Both groups increased in strength (P < .001), but those in the HIP protocol gained more in hip-abductor (P = .01) and -extensor (P = .01) strength and posterior core endurance (P = .05) compared with the KNEE group. Conclusions: Both the HIP and KNEE rehabilitation protocols produced improvements in PFP, function, and strength over 6 weeks. Although outcomes were similar, the HIP protocol resulted in earlier resolution of pain and greater overall gains in strength compared with the KNEE protocol.

AB - Context: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is the most common injury in running and jumping athletes. Randomized controlled trials suggest that incorporating hip and core strengthening (HIP) with knee-focused rehabilitation (KNEE) improves PFP outcomes. However, no randomized controlled trials have, to our knowledge, directly compared HIP and KNEE programs. Objective: To compare PFP pain, function, hip- and knee-muscle strength, and core endurance between KNEE and HIP protocols after 6 weeks of rehabilitation. We hypothesized greater improvements in (1) pain and function, (2) hip strength and core endurance for patients with PFP involved in the HIP protocol, and (3) knee strength for patients involved in the KNEE protocol. Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial. Setting: Four clinical research laboratories in Calgary, Alberta; Chicago, Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Augusta, Georgia. Patients or Other Participants: Of 721 patients with PFP screened, 199 (27.6%) met the inclusion criteria (66 men [31.2%], 133 women [66.8%], age = 29.0 ± 7.1 years, height = 170.4 ± 9.4 cm, weight = 67.6 ± 13.5 kg). Intervention(s): Patients with PFP were randomly assigned to a 6-week KNEE or HIP protocol. Main Outcome Measure(s): Primary variables were selfreported visual analog scale and Anterior Knee Pain Scale measures, which were conducted weekly. Secondary variables were muscle strength and core endurance measured at baseline and at 6 weeks. Results: Compared with baseline, both the visual analog scale and the Anterior Knee Pain Scale improved for patients with PFP in both the HIP and KNEE protocols (P < .001), but the visual analog scale scores for those in the HIP protocol were reduced 1 week earlier than in the KNEE group. Both groups increased in strength (P < .001), but those in the HIP protocol gained more in hip-abductor (P = .01) and -extensor (P = .01) strength and posterior core endurance (P = .05) compared with the KNEE group. Conclusions: Both the HIP and KNEE rehabilitation protocols produced improvements in PFP, function, and strength over 6 weeks. Although outcomes were similar, the HIP protocol resulted in earlier resolution of pain and greater overall gains in strength compared with the KNEE protocol.

KW - Anterior knee pain

KW - Clinical trial

KW - Knee rehabilitation

KW - Outcomes assessment

KW - Patella

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84933053571&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84933053571&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.70

DO - 10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.70

M3 - Article

C2 - 25365133

AN - SCOPUS:84933053571

VL - 50

SP - 366

EP - 377

JO - Journal of Athletic Training

JF - Journal of Athletic Training

SN - 1062-6050

IS - 4

ER -