Patellar tendon shortening surgery restores the knee extensor mechanism in flexed knee gait in children with cerebral palsy.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated a patellar tendon shortening (PTS) surgical procedure that uses an overlapping repair combined with an additional Tycron non-absorbable suture to support the shortening in children with Cerebral Palsy (CP). This study aimed to outline this surgical technique and to evaluate its effectiveness in restoring the knee extensor mechanism. METHODS: The sagittal plane lower limb kinematics, peak knee extensor moment, gait deviation index (GDI), localised movement deviation profile (MDP), temporospatial parameters, passive knee extension ROM, quadriceps lag, and knee extensor strength were calculated pre- and postoperatively. To determine significant differences a robust linear regression model with high breakdown point and high efficiency was fitted to the data. RESULTS: In this retrospective cohort study, a total of 41 patients with CP who were treated with unilateral or bilateral PTS in isolation or as part of single event multilevel surgery (SEMLS), with a mean age of 11.1 years were included. The knee extension angle improved at initial contact (p < 0.0001), and during stance phase (p < 0.0001). The peak internal knee extensor moment decreased during early (p = 0.0014) and late stance phase (p < 0.0001). The quadriceps lag decreased (p < 0.0001) and knee extensor strength increased (p < 0.0001). The GDI improved (p < 0.0001), as well as the localised MDP for sagittal angles (p < 0.0001) and moments (p = 0.0001). Walking speed (p = 1.0) remained unchanged, but the cadence decreased (p = 0.024) and step length increased (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The knee extension angle and moment during stance phase improved significantly. The children with CP in this study showed improvements in knee extensor strength and quadriceps lag. Thereby it can be concluded that the PTS procedure was able to restore the knee extensor mechanism effectively.

Running shoes for preventing lower limb running injuries in adults.

BACKGROUND: Lower-limb running injuries are common. Running shoes have been proposed as one means of reducing injury risk. However, there is uncertainty as to how effective running shoes are for the prevention of injury. It is also unclear how the effects of different characteristics of running shoes prevent injury. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of running shoes for preventing lower-limb running injuries in adult runners. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus and SPORTDiscus plus trial registers WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving runners or military personnel in basic training that either compared a) a running shoe with a non-running shoe; b) different types of running shoes (minimalist, neutral/cushioned, motion control, stability, soft midsole, hard midsole); or c) footwear recommended and selected on foot posture versus footwear not recommended and not selected on foot posture for preventing lower-limb running injuries. Our primary outcomes were number of people sustaining a lower-limb running injury and number of lower-limb running injuries. Our secondary outcomes were number of runners who failed to return to running or their previous level of running, runner satisfaction with footwear, adverse events other than musculoskeletal injuries, and number of runners requiring hospital admission or surgery, or both, for musculoskeletal injury or adverse event. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The certainty of the included evidence was assessed using GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials in the analysis which included a total of 11,240 participants, in trials that lasted from 6 to 26 weeks and were carried out in North America, Europe, Australia and South Africa. Most of the evidence was low or very low certainty as it was not possible to blind runners to their allocated running shoe, there was variation in the definition of an injury and characteristics of footwear, and there were too few studies for most comparisons. We did not find any trials that compared running shoes with non-running shoes. Neutral/cushioned versus minimalist (5 studies, 766 participants) Neutral/cushioned shoes may make little or no difference to the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with minimalist shoes (low-certainty evidence) (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.01). One trial reported that 67% and 92% of runners were satisfied with their neutral/cushioned or minimalist running shoes, respectively (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.12). Another trial reported mean satisfaction scores ranged from 4.0 to 4.3 in the neutral/ cushioned group and 3.6 to 3.9 in the minimalist running shoe group out of a total of 5. Hence neutral/cushioned running shoes may make little or no difference to runner satisfaction with footwear (low-certainty evidence). Motion control versus neutral / cushioned (2 studies, 421 participants) It is uncertain whether or not motion control shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with neutral / cushioned shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.81). Soft midsole versus hard midsole (2 studies, 1095 participants) Soft midsole shoes may make little or no difference to the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with hard midsole shoes (low-certainty of evidence) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10). Stability versus neutral / cushioned (1 study, 57 participants) It is uncertain whether or not stability shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with neutral/cushioned shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.31). Motion control versus stability (1 study, 56 participants) It is uncertain whether or not motion control shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with stability shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.43 to 8.40). Running shoes prescribed and selected on foot posture (3 studies, 7203 participants) There was no evidence that running shoes prescribed based on static foot posture reduced the number of injuries compared with those who received a shoe not prescribed based on foot posture in military recruits (Rate Ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13). Subgroup analysis confirmed these findings were consistent between males and females. Therefore, prescribing running shoes and selecting on foot posture probably makes little or no difference to lower-limb running injuries (moderate-certainty evidence). Data were not available for all other review outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most evidence demonstrates no reduction in lower-limb running injuries in adults when comparing different types of running shoes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence determining whether different types of running shoes influence running injury rates was very low to low, and as such we are uncertain as to the true effects of different types of running shoes upon injury rates. There is no evidence that prescribing footwear based on foot type reduces running-related lower-limb injures in adults. The evidence for this comparison was rated as moderate and as such we can have more certainty when interpreting these findings. However, all three trials included in this comparison used military populations and as such the findings may differ in recreational runners.  Future researchers should develop a consensus definition of running shoe design to help standardise classification. The definition of a running injury should also be used consistently and confirmed via health practitioners. More researchers should consider a RCT design to increase the evidence in this area. Lastly, future work should look to explore the influence of different types or running shoes upon injury rates in specific subgroups.

How effective is an evidence-based exercise intervention in individuals with patellofemoral pain?

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines for a comprehensive rehabilitation programme for patellofemoral pain (PFP) have been developed by international experts. The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of such a rehabilitative exercise programme on pain, function, kinesiophobia, running biomechanics, quadriceps strength and quadriceps muscle inhibition in individuals with PFP. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Clinical environment. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven participants with PFP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptoms [numeric pain rating scale (NPRS)and the pain subscale of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)], function measured by using the KUJALA scale and KOOS, kinesiophobia measured by using the Tampa scale, three-dimensional biomechanical running data, quadriceps isometric, concentric and eccentric strength and arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI) were acquired before and after the six-week exercise programme. RESULTS: Although pain did not significantly improve all patients were pain-free after the six-week exercise programme (NPRS: p = 0.074). Function, kinesiophobia and quadriceps AMI improved significantly after the six-week exercise programme (KUJALA: p = 0.001, KOOS: p = 0.0001, Tampa: p = 0.017, AMI: p = 0.018). Running biomechanics during stance phase did not change after the exercise intervention. Quadriceps strength was not different after the six-week exercise programme (isometric: p = 0.992, concentric: p = 0.075, eccentric: p = 0.351). CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that the current exercise recommendations can improve function and kinesiophobia and reduce pain and AMI in individuals with PFP. There is a need for reconsideration of the current exercise guidelines in stronger individuals with PFP.