Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 87, Issue 11 , Pages 1428-1435 , November 2006

Outcomes of a Weight-Bearing Rehabilitation Program for Patients Diagnosed With Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome

Presented in part to the National Athletic Trainers’ Symposium, June 2005, Indianapolis, IN.

  • Michelle C. Boling, MS, ATC

      Affiliations

    • Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Michelle C. Boling, MS, ATC, Fetzer Gymnasium, CB# 8700, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599
    • ,
  • Lori A. Bolgla, PT, PhD, ATC

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Therapy, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA.
    • ,
  • Carl G. Mattacola, PhD, ATC

      Affiliations

    • Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
    • ,
  • Tim L. Uhl, PT, PhD, ATC

      Affiliations

    • Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
    • ,
  • Robert G. Hosey, MD

      Affiliations

    • College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

  • Image Result

    The stair platform.

    The stair platform.

  • Image Result

    The descent phase of the stair-stepping task.

    The descent phase of the stair-stepping task.

  • Image Result

    Mean vastus lateralis (VL) and VMO onset timing difference pretest and posttest for subjects with PFPS and control subjects (CS). Timing differences are significantly different at pretest and are simi

    Mean vastus lateralis (VL) and VMO onset timing difference pretest and posttest for subjects with PFPS and control subjects (CS). Timing differences are significantly different at pretest and are similar at posttest. Positive values indicate VMO activation before vastus lateralis activation. Error bars refer to SDs for the vastus lateralis and VMO onset timing differences in each group during the pretests and posttests. *Significant difference (P<.05) between control group and PFPS group pretest. †Significant difference (P<.05) between PFPS group pretest and posttest.

  • Image Result
    Mean VAS scores for subjects with PFPS and control subjects. Pain was significantly different between baseline and weeks 4 to 6 for subjects with PFPS. Error bars refer to SDs for the VAS scores in ea

    Mean VAS scores for subjects with PFPS and control subjects. Pain was significantly different between baseline and weeks 4 to 6 for subjects with PFPS. Error bars refer to SDs for the VAS scores in each group over the 6-week intervention. *Significant difference (P<.05) from baseline in the PFPS group.

  • Image Result
    Mean FIQ scores for subjects with PFPS and control subjects. Function was significantly better from baseline at weeks 2 to 6 for subjects with PFPS. Error bars refer to SDs for the FIQ scores in each

    Mean FIQ scores for subjects with PFPS and control subjects. Function was significantly better from baseline at weeks 2 to 6 for subjects with PFPS. Error bars refer to SDs for the FIQ scores in each group over the 6-week intervention. *Significant difference (P<.05) from baseline in the PFPS group.

 Funded by National Athletic Trainers’ Association (Osternig Masters grant).No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the author(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated.

PII: S0003-9993(06)00869-0

doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.07.264

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 87, Issue 11 , Pages 1428-1435 , November 2006

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution