Lower Extremity Kinetics and Kinematics in Runners with Patellofemoral Pain: A Retrospective Case–Control Study Using Musculoskeletal Simulation

Abstract

Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is a common atraumatic knee pathology in runners, with a complex multifactorial aetiology influenced by sex differences. This retrospective case–control study therefore aimed to evaluate lower limb kinetics and kinematics in symptomatic and control male and female runners using musculoskeletal simulation. Lower extremity biomechanics were assessed in 40 runners with PFP (15 females and 25 males) and 40 controls (15 females and 25 males), whilst running at a self-selected velocity. Lower extremity biomechanics were explored using a musculoskeletal simulation approach. Four intergroup comparisons—(1) overall PFP vs. control; (2) male PFP vs. male control; (3) female PFP vs. female control; and (4) male PFP vs. female PFP—were undertaken using linear mixed models. The overall (stress per mile: PFP = 1047.49 and control = 812.93) and female (peak stress: PFP = 13.07 KPa/BW and control = 10.82 KPa/BW) comparisons showed increased patellofemoral joint stress indices in PFP runners. A significantly lower strike index was also shown in PFP runners in the overall (PFP = 17.75% and control = 33.57%) and female analyses (PFP = 15.49% and control = 40.20%), revealing a midfoot strike in control, and a rearfoot pattern in PFP runners. Peak rearfoot eversion and contralateral pelvic drop range of motion (ROM) were shown to be greater in PFP runners in the overall (eversion: PFP = −8.15° and control = −15.09°/pelvic drop ROM: PFP = 3.64° and control = 1.88°), male (eversion: PFP = −8.05° and control = −14.69°/pelvic drop ROM: PFP = 3.16° and control = 1.77°) and female (eversion: PFP = 8.28° and control = −15.75°/pelvic drop ROM: PFP = 3.64° and control = 1.88°) PFP runners, whilst female PFP runners (11.30°) exhibited a significantly larger peak hip adduction compared to PFP males (7.62°). The findings from this investigation highlight biomechanical differences between control and PFP runners, as well as demonstrating distinctions in PFP presentation for many parameters between sexes, highlighting potential risk factors for PFP that may be addressed through focused intervention modalities, and also the need, where appropriate, for sex-specific targeted treatment approaches.