2016 Patellofemoral pain consensus statement from the 4th International Patellofemoral Pain Research Retreat, Manchester. Part 1: Terminology, definitions, clinical examination, natural history, patellofemoral osteoarthritis and patient-reported outcome measures

Patellofemoral pain (PFP) typically presents as diffuse anterior knee pain, usually with activities such as squatting, running, stair ascent and descent. It is common in active individuals across the lifespan,1–4 and is a frequent cause for presentation at physiotherapy, general practice, orthopaedic and sports medicine clinics in particular.5 ,6 Its impact is profound, often reducing the ability of those with PFP to perform sporting, physical activity and work-related activities pain-free. Increasing evidence suggests that it is a recalcitrant condition, persisting for many years.7–9 In an attempt to share recent innovations, build on the first three successful biennial retreats and define the ‘state of the art’ for this common, impactful condition; the 4th International Patellofemoral Pain Research Retreat was convened. The 4th International Patellofemoral Research Retreat was held in Manchester, UK, over 3 days (September 2–4th, 2015). After undergoing peer-review for scientific merit and relevance to the retreat, 67 abstracts were accepted for the retreat (50 podium presentations, and 17 short presentations). The podium and short presentations were grouped into five categories; (1) PFP, (2) factors that influence PFP (3) the trunk and lower extremity (4) interventions and (5) systematic analyses. Three keynote speakers were chosen for their scientific contribution in the area of PFP. Professor Andrew Amis spoke on the biomechanics of the patellofemoral joint. Professor David Felson spoke on patellofemoral arthritis,10 and Dr Michael Ratleff's keynote theme was PFP in the adolescent patient.11 As part of the retreat, we held structured, whole-group discussions in order to develop consensus relating to the work presented at the meeting as well as evidence gathered from the literature

Preliminary evaluation of prototype footwear and insoles to optimise balance and gait in older people

Abstract Background Footwear has the potential to influence balance in either a detrimental or beneficial manner, and is therefore an important consideration in relation to falls prevention. The objective of this study was to evaluate balance ability and gait patterns in older women while wearing prototype footwear and insoles designed to improve balance. Methods Older women (n = 30) aged 65 – 83 years (mean 74.4, SD 5.6) performed a series of laboratory tests of balance ability (postural sway on a foam rubber mat, limits of stability and tandem walking, measured with the Neurocom® Balance Master) and gait patterns (walking speed, cadence, step length and step width at preferred speed, measured with the GAITRite® walkway) while wearing (i) flexible footwear (Dunlop Volley™), (ii) their own footwear, and (iii) prototype footwear and insoles designed to improve dynamic balance. Perceptions of the footwear were also documented using a structured questionnaire. Results There was no difference in postural sway, limits of stability or gait patterns between the footwear conditions. However, when performing the tandem walking test, there was a significant reduction in step width and end sway when wearing the prototype footwear compared to both the flexible footwear and participants’ own footwear. Participants perceived their own footwear to be more attractive, comfortable, well-fitted and easier to put on and off compared to the prototype footwear. Despite this, most participants (n = 18, 60%) reported that they would consider wearing the prototype footwear to reduce their risk of falling. Conclusion The prototype footwear and insoles used in this study improve balance when performing a tandem walk test, as evidenced by a narrower step width and decreased sway at completion of the task. However, further development of the design is required to make the footwear acceptable to older women from the perspective of aesthetics and comfort. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. ACTRN12617001128381 , 01/08/2017 (retrospectively registered)

Developing Clinical and Research Priorities for Pain and Psychological Features in People With Patellofemoral Pain: An International Consensus Process With Health Care Professionals

Objective: To decide clinical and research priorities on pain features and psychological factors in persons with patellofemoral pain. Design: Consensus development process. Methods: We undertook a 3-stage process consisting of (1) updating 2 systematic reviews on quantitative sensory testing of pain features and psychological factors in patellofemoral pain, (2) an online survey of health care professionals and persons with patellofemoral pain, and (3) a consensus meeting with expert health care professionals. Participants responded that they agreed, disagreed, or were unsure that a pain feature or psychological factor was important in clinical practice or as a research priority. Greater than 70% participant agreement was required for an item to be considered important in clinical practice or a research priority. Results: Thirty-five health care professionals completed the survey, 20 of whom attended the consensus meeting. Thirty persons with patellofemoral pain also completed the survey. The review identified 5 pain features and 9 psychological factors—none reached 70% agreement in the patient survey, so all were considered at the meeting. After the meeting, pain catastrophizing, fear-avoidance beliefs, and pain self-efficacy were the only factors considered clinically important. All but the thermal pain tests and 3 psychological factors were considered research priorities. Conclusion: Pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, and fear-avoidance beliefs were factors considered important in treatment planning, clinical examination, and prognostication. Quantitative sensory tests for pain were not regarded as clinically important but were deemed to be research priorities, as were most psychological factors