TRAINING, PREVENTION, AND REHABILITATION
Update on Rehabilitation of Patellofemoral Pain
Rebecca A. Dutton, MD; Michael J. Khadavi, MD; and Michael Fredericson, MD, FACSM
Abstract
Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is a multifactorial disorder with a
variety of treatment options. The assortment of components that con-
tribute to its pathophysiology can be categorized into local joint impair-
ments, altered lower extremity biomechanics, and overuse. A detailed
physical examination permits identification of the unique contributors for
a given individual and permits the formation of a precise, customized
treatment plan. This review aims to describe the latest evidence and
recommendations regarding rehabilitation of PFPS. We address the util-
ity of quadriceps strengthening, soft tissue flexibility, patellar taping,
patellar bracing, hip strengthening, foot orthoses, gait reeducation, and
training modification in the treatment of PFPS.
Introduction
Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is a condition
characterized by insidious onset anterior knee pain that is
magnified in the setting of increased compressive forces to
the patellofemoral joint, such as squatting, ascending or de-
scending stairs, and prolonged sitting (47). PFPS is remark-
ably common, accounting for up to 25% of all knee injuries
presenting to sports medicine clinics (23). The precise etiol-
ogy, however, remains poorly defined. Current understand-
ing supports a multifactorial basis in which a diverse array
of contributing factors result in excessive patellofemoral
joint stress (Table 1).
Mounting evidence suggests that PFPS is not self-limiting,
with persistent symptoms observed in as many as 91% of
individuals after extended follow-up (72). Moreover indi-
vidual responses to specific conservative strategies in isola-
tion are unpredictable (17). The chronicity and variability of
response to treatment likely reflects the diversity of causes
and underscores the importance of recognizing and address-
ing the unique contributing factors for a given individual.
This tailored approach to rehabilitation necessitates a fo-
cused history and examination, including assessment of static
Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of
Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA.
Address for correspondence: Michael Fredericson, MD, FACSM, Division
of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Orthopedic Surgery,
Stanford University, 450 Broadway Street, MC 6342, Redwood City,
CA 94063-6342; E-mail: mfred2@stanford.edu.
1537-890X/1303/172Y178
Current Sports Medicine Reports
Copyright * 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine
172 Volume 13 & Number 3 & May/June 2014
Copyright © 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
and dynamic alignment of the lower
extremity, patellar orientation and track-
ing, lower extremity strength and flexi-
bility, as well as gait analysis (15).
Thus effective rehabilitation must
incorporate a multimodal approach that
addresses all of the underlying contri-
butors identified on an individual’s phys-
ical examination. Broadly these factors
may be considered in three categories:
local joint impairments, altered lower
extremity biomechanics, and overuse.
Here, we review the current evidence
supporting rehabilitation strategies for
PFPS as they apply to specific etiological factors (Table 2).
Local Joint Impairments
Traditionally rehabilitation strategies have emphasized cor-
rection of abnormal patellofemoral kinematics and alignment
by addressing structures at or crossing the knee joint, as these
local structures have a direct effect on patellofemoral function,
especially patellar tracking. Maltracking is defined classically
by excessive lateral alignment of the patella within the troch-
lear groove and is thought to play a pivotal role in the devel-
opment of PFPS. Strategies to address maltracking include
quadriceps strengthening and improved flexibility of regional
soft tissues (namely, the quadriceps, hamstrings, and iliotibial
band). External methods, including taping and bracing, to re-
solve patellar maltracking have been investigated also.
Quadriceps strength
Strengthening of the quadriceps femoris has been the pre-
vailing method of rehabilitation for PFPS, based on a strong
association between PFPS and knee extension weakness.
There is recent prospective evidence to suggest that healthy
individuals with weak knee extensors are at increased risk of
developing PFPS (9). Furthermore isolated strengthening of
the quadriceps femoris complex consistently has shown suc-
cess in treatment of PFPS (2,74,84).
The ideal approach to quadriceps strengthening may in-
corporate both open and closed kinetic chain exercises. In
open kinetic chain exercises such as knee extensions, quad-
riceps muscle force and patellofemoral joint stress are great-
est near full extension (31,73). Conversely in closed kinetic
chain exercises such as lunges and leg presses, quadriceps
muscle force and patellofemoral joint stress are highest near
full flexion (31,73). Therefore integration of both forms of
Rehabilitation of Patellofemoral Pain
Table 1.
Etiologic contributors to PFPS.
Local Joint Impairments Altered Lower Extremity Biomechanics Training Errors/Overuse
Quadriceps weakness Hip abductor weakness Increasing exercise too quickly
Impaired VM function Hip external rotator weakness Inadequate time for recovery
Soft tissue inflexibility Excessive foot pronation Excessive hill work
Quadriceps Pes planus
Gastrocnemius Excessive impact shock with heel strike
Iliotibial band
Hamstring

exercise promotes strengthening throughout the arc of mo-
tion. Moreover open kinetic chain exercises (especially in the
range of 90-Y45-) may be better tolerated in the acute phases
of PFPS when there is significant weakness or pain with
weight bearing (31). In the long run, however, closed kinetic
chain exercises with an emphasis on cocontraction of the
hamstring and quadriceps muscles have proven overall su-
perior to open kinetic chain exercises in improving function
(2,84). Thus closed kinetic chain exercises should be incor-
porated to the rehabilitation program as early as a patient is
able to tolerate (15).
Vastus medialis strength
Much attention has been given to the role of the vastus
medialis (VM), and particularly the VM oblique (VMO),
based on observations of reduced VMO volume and strength
in individuals postsurgery, following injury, or with PFPS.
The VMO fibers insert more distally and horizontally on the
patella and are critical to providing dynamic medial patellar
stability (30,32,44). Studies have found a significant correla-
tion between VMO abnormalities (insertion level, fiber angle,
and VMO volume) and patellofemoral pain (39,57). However
three randomized controlled trials have compared attempts

Table 2.
Approach to PFPS management.
Causative Element Physical Examination Correlate Management Considerations
Local factors Patellar malposition/maltracking Patella alta Patellar taping
Lateral patellar tilt Patellar bracing
Lateral patellar displacement Correction of vasti activation imbalance
Soft tissue inflexibility Tight iliotibial band Stretching and foam roll
Tight quadriceps
Tight hamstring
Tight gastrocnemius
Lower extremity Hip muscle weakness Static hip abductor weakness, Hip strengthening progressing to
biomechanics Dynamic knee valgum, functional movement patterns
Excessive hip adduction with
SLS, and Contralateral pelvic
drop with single leg squat
Foot malposition Excessive pronation contributing Foot orthosis
to increased femoral rotation
Gait Ipsilateral hip adduction Gait retraining
Contralateral pelvic drop
Excessive impact shock with
heel strike
Training errors Overly rapid NA Relative rest
exercise progression Correct training errors
Overly intense exercise
intensity for level of fitness
Inadequate recovery

NA, not applicable.

www.acsm-csmr.org Current Sports Medicine Reports 173

Copyright © 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
at VMO strengthening to overall quadriceps strengthening
using electromyographic feedback techniques, with unani-
mous results that negate any difference in short-term out-
comes (26,74,88). Another study examined nine commonly
used strengthening exercises and found that electromyo-
graphic activity was no different between the VMO and
other muscles comprising the quadriceps complex (49).
Therefore specific exercises to isolate the VMO for
strengthening are not indicated. A well-rounded quadri-
ceps strengthening program should correct any imbalance in
strength between the quadriceps muscles.
VM activation and timing
In addition to strength of the VMO, the timing of VM
activation in relation to that of vastus lateralis (VL) has been
implicated in multiple studies of PFPS (12,18,78,85). How-
ever this finding has not been consistent across all studies
(11,64). Fortunately more recent research has helped to clarify
the role of delayed VM activation in patellar maltracking.
Vasti muscle activation may be quantified by either delay in
VM activation when compared to the VL or the ratio of the
magnitudes of normalized activations of the VL and VM mus-
cles (VL/VM) (69). A novel diagnostic method by Pal et al.
(55,56) has provided important breakthroughs in understanding
the relationship between vasti muscle imbalance and patellar
maltracking in patellofemoral pain patients. They defined a
subset of individuals with patellar maltracking based on pa-
tellar tilt and bisect offset as measured from weight-bearing
magnetic resonance imaging, and they found that within this
group, the degree of maltracking was correlated with delay in
VM activation. Furthermore when they combined their pa-
tients with and without patellar maltracking, no relation-
ship between maltracking and vasti muscle imbalance was
detected (55,56). In so doing, Pal et al. demonstrated the
importance of accurate classification of individuals with
PFPS into maltracking and normal tracking groups. One
reason for the discrepancies observed in prior studies likely
relates to the percentage of maltracking and normal track-
ing patients included in these studies; a study with a large
number of maltrackers would conclude vasti muscle imbal-
ance in patellofemoral pain patients, while a study with a
large number of normal trackers would likely find no vasti
muscle imbalance in patellofemoral pain patients. Indeed in a
recent review article, Wong (86) hypothesized that the dis-
crepancies between previous studies were due to lack of
standardized methods for quantifying vasti muscle imbal-
ance. Thus while controlled trials are lacking, it is logical to
address deficits in VM activation delay and patellar mal-
tracking within this subgroup of patellofemoral pain subjects
with documented maltracking (abnormal tilt and/or abnor-
mal bisect offset).
Pal et al. (56) have developed a cost-effective method for
determination of vasti activation imbalance, based on the
discovery of a strong correlation between the two vasti
activation imbalance measures. Measurement of VM activa-
tion delay during functional tasks requires synchronization
of EMG data with joint kinematics and ground reaction
forces; VL/VM activation ratios can be obtained by simply
placing surface electrodes on a patient while performing a
functional task and is feasible in clinical settings.
174 Volume 13 & Number 3 & May/June 2014
Copyright © 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Once vasti activation imbalance is recognized, several tech-
niques may be effective to modify VM discrepancies. EMG
biofeedback measures neuromuscular contractions and pro-
vides auditory or visual feedback signals designed to increase
awareness and voluntary control of muscle activation. When
combined with therapeutic exercise, EMG biofeedback aimed
at increasing VMO activation while maintaining constant VL
activity has been shown to improve VMO/VL activation ra-
tios (53). Patellar taping, discussed in greater detail below,
may likewise represent a useful adjuvant to augment tem-
poral activation of the VMO (14,19).
Soft tissue flexibility
Stretching the muscles that surround the knee is another
commonly employed technique in the management of PFPS.
Inflexibility of both the rectus femoris and the gastrocne-
mius has been prospectively associated with development of
PFPS (84). Cross-sectional studies likewise have observed a
relationship of hamstring and iliotibial band tightness to the
presence of PFPS (37,65). The iliotibial band, in particular,
appears to play an essential role in patellar maltracking, with
its derivative fibers comprising the strongest and most sub-
stantial layer of the lateral retinaculum. The transverse ori-
entation of these fibers serves to resist medial displacement of
the patella; however, when excessively tight, it may result in
disproportionate lateral translation. Cadaveric studies sup-
port this notion, demonstrating increased lateral patellar shift
and tilt with augmented iliotibial band loads (42,46). Fur-
thermore among a small sample of patients, surgical release
of iliotibial tract contracture has been shown to result in re-
duced lateral patellar subluxation and patellar tilt (87).
Generalized stretching protocols that encompass the
quadriceps, hamstring, gastrocnemius, and iliotibial band
have established benefit, especially when combined with an
exercise program. In a randomized, controlled, single-blind
trial, Moyano et al. (50) demonstrated significant reductions
in pain among individuals managed with a stretching routine
combined with strengthening or aerobic exercise. Proprio-
ceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching, in particular, a
technique combining passive and isometric stretching, may
yield enhanced pain control and function. However there is
currently a paucity of research addressing isolated stretching
protocols. Of the two controlled studies examining the role of
isolated rectus femoris stretching in PFPS (45,58), only one
showed significant clinical improvement (45). There are no
randomized clinical trials that assess directed hamstring or
iliotibial band stretching in the management of PFPS.
Although further investigation is necessary to identify
whether specific muscles or stretches contribute more sig-
nificantly to clinical improvement in PFPS, a stretching
protocol aimed to reverse identified inflexibility of the quad-
riceps, gastrocnemius, hamstring, and/or iliotibial band is a
valuable component of PFPS rehabilitation. Given the role of
the iliotibial tract on patellar tracking, an emphasis on reliev-
ing iliotibial band tightness may prove particularly high yield,
especially in individuals with concurrent maltracking and
iliotibial band tightness on examination.
Patellar taping
A variety of taping methods have been proposed with the
tailored McConnell taping technique representing the standard
Rehabilitation of Patellofemoral Pain
in management of PFPS. The McConnell method aims to
control patellar tilt, glide, and/or spin based on physical
examination findings (20). Studies have found increased
tolerance to knee joint loading, increased VMO activity,
and improved onset of the VMO in relation to the VL
muscles utilizing this method (14,19,63,68). Alterations in
patellofemoral kinematics have been demonstrated also
(22). Taping performed under dynamic magnetic resonance
imaging reveals inferior shift of the patella, thereby in-
creasing the patellofemoral contact area within the trochlea
(22). Taping also may lateralize the patella partially in in-
dividuals with baseline medial displacement and medialize the
patella in individuals with baseline lateral displacement, again
improving patellofemoral contact area (22). This increase in
contact area is theorized to contribute to pain reduction in
PFPS by producing a wider distribution of forces across the
patella and possibly relieving contact in sensitive areas (62).
McConnell taping shows promise in providing enhanced
pain relief and function particularly when combined with
exercise (45,79). Whittingham et al. (79) investigated pain
and functional outcomes among three treatment groups:
McConnell taping combined with exercise, placebo taping
combined with exercise, and exercise alone. While pain im-
proved across all groups by 4 wk, both pain and function
scores were significantly better in the group managed with a
combination of McConnell taping and exercise. In an effort
to further delineate the impact of taping, Mason et al. (45)
evaluated the effect of quadriceps strengthening, quadriceps
stretching, and McConnell taping in isolation and in com-
bination. Improvements in pain and strength were demon-
strated for all intervention groups in isolation, but more
significant and pervasive improvements were observed when
the three modalities were combined. A recent meta-analysis
further concluded that there is moderate evidence to support
incorporation of tailored taping into a rehabilitation pro-
gram for PFPS, particularly for early pain reduction (7).
Patellar bracing
Bracing has been explored similarly for its role in patel-
lar stabilization and management of PFPS. As with taping,
bracing has been shown to modify patellofemoral kinematics
(27,62). Medially directed patellofemoral stabilization braces,
and to a lesser degree, simple knee support sleeves, contribute
to reduced lateral translation of the patella (27). Medially di-
rected braces also may reduce patellar tilt (27). These alter-
ations are more apparent in a subset of individuals who have
baseline abnormal kinematics when compared to controls (27).
However it is recognized that the impact of braces on patellar
lateralization and tilt is limited, and alignment is not restored
to normal with bracing alone (27,62). Patellofemoral contact
area, on the other hand, does appear to increase substantially
with the application of a medially directed brace and may
be a driving factor in associated pain reduction (62).
The clinical effect of knee braces on patellofemoral pain
has been investigated with varying results. There are few
prospective randomized clinical trials evaluating the impact
of bracing. Immediate pain reduction following application
of a brace has been reported (62). Longer-term benefits in a
small population also have been demonstrated (1). Arazpour
et al. (1) found a nearly 60% reduction in pain with the
use of bracing and additionally ascertained gains in walking
www.acsm-csmr.org
Copyright © 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
speed and step length. Despite this, others have failed to
uncover a therapeutic benefit to bracing (48). This may rep-
resent inappropriate patient selection (normal patellar kine-
matics) or variability in the type of brace employed. Although
further studies are needed to clarify the outcomes and most
appropriate subpopulations for brace utilization, a properly
fitted patellar stabilization brace represents a potential ad-
juvant to a physical therapy program, particularly in those
patients with documented patellar maltracking, and is a rea-
sonable alternative to patellar taping.
Altered Lower Extremity Biomechanics
While addressing local joint impairments remains an in-
tegral component of PFPS rehabilitation, there is expanding
evidence to support the influence of lower extremity kine-
matics in the development of PFPS. Aberrations that result
in excessive internal rotation of the femur in particular
appear to increase patellofemoral stress. Studies utilizing
dynamic magnetic resonance imaging suggest excessive in-
ternal femoral rotation, rather than patellar rotation, as
giving rise to lateral patellar tracking and increased patello-
femoral joint stress (59,70). These kinematic changes more
likely are to be seen during more demanding tasks such as
single-limb squat, running, single-limb jumping, and single-
limb drop landing (24,71,80,81).
Hip strength
Deficits in hip muscle performance, particularly the ex-
ternal rotators and abductors including gluteus maximus and
medius, could result in internal rotation of the femur during
dynamic lower limb functions and consequent increased pa-
tellofemoral compressive forces. Multiple studies have estab-
lished a correlation between hip external rotator and abductor
weakness in women with PFPS (8,38). Altered neuromuscular
activity of gluteus medius and maximus also has been associ-
ated with PFPS (51).
Recent experience corroborates the incorporation of hip
strengthening in the management of PFPS, especially for the
female population. In 2008, Nakagawa et al. (51) published
the first randomized controlled trial investigating the utility
of a hip strengthening protocol. This study demonstrated that
the addition of hip abduction and external rotation strength-
ening exercises to a traditional rehabilitation program of pa-
tellar mobilization and quadriceps strengthening results in less
pain and improved gluteus medius neuromuscular activation
(51). Since that time, four additional randomized controlled
trials investigating female patients with PFPS have supported
hip strengthening further in reducing patellofemoral pain and
optimizing function (25,34,35,41). Importantly when com-
pared to knee stretching and strengthening alone, the addition
of targeted hip exercise appears to provide significantly more
lasting benefits at 1 year and minimize risk of pain relapse
(35). Thus targeted hip muscle strengthening is encouraged for
PFPS rehabilitation, particularly in women who demonstrate
static or dynamic evidence of hip weakness and medial femoral
collapse on physical examination. Exercises should address the
gluteus medius and maximus specifically. Gluteus medius may
be targeted with side-lying abduction and single-limb squats.
Gluteus maximus is best recruited using front planks with hip
Current Sports Medicine Reports 175
extension and gluteal squeezes. Side planks effectively target
both gluteus maximus and medius (10).
Foot position
Observational studies have demonstrated an association
between excessive foot pronation and PFPS (3,67). The pre-
cise manner by which excessive pronation may result in in-
creased patellofemoral stress has not been elucidated; however
Tiberio (76) theorized one possible mechanism through com-
pensatory internal rotation of the femur. In normal gait, the
subtalar joint is supinated at heel strike. During early contact,
the foot pronates and the tibia internally rotates. Once the
foot reaches midstance and the foot is in full contact with the
ground, the subtalar joint again supinates and the tibia fol-
lows, externally rotating, in order to move the knee into ex-
tension. However in situations of excessive pronation, the
subtalar joint remains in a pronated position at midstance,
preventing the tibia from externally rotating. Tiberio pro-
posed that to compensate and promote knee extension, the
femur internally rotates on the tibia (the so-called compen-
satory internal rotation of the femur). This then results in
lateral tracking of the patella, thereby increasing patellofem-
oral strain. Although not proven, this model has become
accepted widely and provides a plausible rationale for the
apparent relation between overpronation and PFPS. How-
ever Reischl et al. (66) have reported that the magnitude of
foot pronation does not predict the magnitude of tibia or
femur rotation. As such, patients need be evaluated on an
individual basis to determine whether abnormal foot me-
chanics are contributing to a kinematic pattern that could
explain the presence of patellofemoral symptoms.
Historically results utilizing foot orthoses to correct ex-
cessive pronation in the management of PFPS have been
mixed; however there is a growing body of literature to sup-
port the use of foot orthoses. The predominance of recent
studies implement semirigid orthoses. Instead of rigid mate-
rials, semifirm materials that absorb shock and provide me-
dial longitudinal arch support without hindering the natural
pronation mechanism of the foot are recommended (61).
Positive effects in both pain reduction and functional
performance have been reported immediately following use
(6) and over a period of time up to 3 months (5,40). In a
recent randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of
foot orthoses to flat inserts or physical therapy, prefabri-
cated orthoses did appear superior to flat inserts according
to participants’ perception in the short-term management of
PFPS (16). Outcomes were no different between the orthosis
group and physical therapy. Furthermore the combined use
of a foot orthosis with physical therapy did not portend any
additional gains in pain or function at follow-up. It is worth
noting that participants of this study were not screened for
lower extremity mechanics including foot posture. The
failure to detect an advantage, particularly in the combined
group, may reflect inclusion of individuals for whom an
orthosis would be less likely beneficial. Several predictors
for response to foot orthoses have been identified includ-
ing lower baseline pain levels, increased midfoot mobility
(change in midfoot width between non-weight bearing and
weight bearing), reduced ankle dorsiflexion, and use of less
supportive shoes (4,77). In addition it has been suggested
that those who report immediate pain reduction with an
176 Volume 13 & Number 3 & May/June 2014
Copyright © 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
orthosis when performing a single-leg squat are more likely
to benefit from one (4).
There are no specific criteria to identify those individuals
who warrant a trial of an orthosis in the management of
PFPS. Nevertheless it is reasonable to trial a foot orthosis
simultaneously, or after an appropriate course of physical
therapy, in individuals with excessive pronation on dynamic
examination. If an over-the-counter orthosis is not sufficient,
a custom orthosis with a stiffer medial heel wedge may be
indicated (33,61).
The majority of research on the foot has focused on the
rearfoot. However due to reported findings of increased
foot mobility in individuals with PFPS, future research may
be better served by focusing more on the midfoot. Pro-
spective evaluation of the foot’s association with PFPS is
needed also (60).
Gait
Gait patterns that demonstrate excessive hip adduction
(9,52), femoral internal rotation (9,71), and excessive pro-
nation during dynamic activities (67) have been implicated
in the development of PFPS. Souza and Powers (71) also re-
ported that isotonic hip extension endurance was a signifi-
cant predictor of peak hip rotation during running, suggesting
that impaired hip muscle performance may underlie the ab-
normal hip kinematics thought to contribute to PFPS. It is
interesting that targeted hip strengthening regimens, while
improving strength, may not affect these associated gait im-
pairments necessarily (29,83). Failure to correct these dy-
namic patterns may result in suboptimal clinical outcomes.
Several researchers have addressed this problem through case
series incorporating various feedback mechanisms, including
visual feedback from an instrumented treadmill (21), real-
time hip adduction measurements (54), adoption of a fore-
foot strike pattern (13), and direct mirror feedback (82), and
all report both biomechanical and clinical success. Thus
while these methods of gait retraining show great promise,
prospective and controlled studies are needed to evaluate
these techniques further in the prevention and treatment
of PFPS.
Increased peak ground reaction forces also have been im-
plicated also in the development of PFPS in runners (75).
Efforts to reduce forces through gait modification have been
undertaken. Heiderscheit et al. (36) performed biomechan-
ical evaluations in healthy runners through modification of
step rate and demonstrated that a higher step rate is asso-
ciated with a decreased foot inclination angle, step length,
center of mass vertical excursion, and horizontal distance
from center of mass and heel at initial contact. A subsequent
follow-up study associated a 14% force reduction at the
patellofemoral joint with a 10% increase in step rate (43). It
stands to reason that methods aimed at reducing ground
reaction and transmitted patellofemoral forces, such as re-
ducing step length, are a reasonable approach to managing
PFPS; however additional trials are necessary to confirm
this notion.
Training Errors
The likely role of tissue homeostasis in the development
of patellofemoral pain has been described by Dye (28). He
maintains that altered tissue homeostasis may occur under
Rehabilitation of Patellofemoral Pain
any circumstance that supersedes the so-called envelope of
function or load acceptance capacity of the joint. This in-
cludes not only gross structural abnormalities but also re-
petitive, lower magnitude loads (supraphysiological overload)
to the patellofemoral joint. While not sufficient to produce
immediately evident structural damage, these repetitive stresses
over time result in loss of osseous and periosseous soft tissue
homeostasis as manifested by peripatellar synovitis and in-
flammation of the fat pad tissues (28). Thus lack of signifi-
cant findings on physical examination (i.e., normal patellar
mechanics and normal lower extremity function) may sug-
gest training errors and overuse resulting in supraphysio-
logical overload. This overuse is seen often in an athletic
population. In such cases, the training program should be
evaluated for obvious errors, including increasing exercise
intensity too quickly, inadequate time for recovery, and ex-
cessive hill work (33). Initial management should empha-
size activity modification to a pain-free level (28).
Conclusion
It is becoming increasingly apparent that PFPS is a mul-
tifactorial condition that mandates a comprehensive yet in-
dividualized approach to treatment. A rehabilitation program
should incorporate quadriceps strengthening and be tailored
further according to identified deficiencies in patellofemoral
kinematics, lower extremity biomechanics, and training. Based
on an individual’s constitution, additional strategies that
may prove valuable include enhanced muscle flexibility, pa-
tellar bracing or taping, hip strengthening, foot orthoses, and
gait modification. Training errors and overuse must be ad-
dressed also.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest and do not
have any financial disclosures.
References
1. Arazpour M, et al. The effect of patellofemoral bracing on walking in in-
dividuals with patellofemoral pain syndrome. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2013;
37:465Y70.
2. Bakhtiary A, Fatemi E. Open versus closed kinetic chain exercises for patellar
chondromalacia. Br. J. Sports Med. 2008; 42:99Y102.
3. Barton CJ, et al. Foot and ankle characteristics in patellofemoral pain syn-
drome: a case controlled and reliability study. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther.
2010; 40:286Y96.
4. Barton CJ, Menz HB, Crossley KM. Clinical predictors of foot orthoses ef-
ficacy in individuals with patellofemoral pain. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2011;
43:1603Y10.
5. Barton CJ, Menz HB, Crossley KM. Effects of prefabricated foot orthoses on
pain and function in individuals with patellofemoral pain syndrome: a cohort
study. Phys. Ther. Sport. 2011; 12:70Y5.
6. Barton CJ, Menz HB, Crossley KM. The immediate effects of foot orthoses
on functional performance in individuals with patellofemoral pain syn-
drome. Br. J. Sports Med. 2011; 45:193Y7.
7. Barton C, Balachandar V, Lack S, Morrissey D. Patellar taping for
patellofemoral pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate clin-
ical outcomes and biomechanical mechanisms. Br. J. Sports Med. 2014;
48(6):417Y24.
8. Bolgla LA, Malone TR, Umberger BR, Uhl TL. Hip strength and hip and knee
kinematics during stair descent in females with and without patellofemoral
pain syndrome. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2008; 38:12Y8.
9. Boling MC, et al. A prospective investigation of biomechanical risk fac-
tors for patellofemoral pain syndrome: the joint undertaking to monitor
and prevent ACL injury (JUMP-ACL) cohort. Am. J. Sports Med. 2009;
37:2108Y16.
www.acsm-csmr.org
Copyright © 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
10. Boren K, et al. Electromyographic analysis of gluteus medius and gluteus
maximus during rehabilitation exercises. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2011;
6:206Y23.
11. Brindle TJ, Mattacola C, McCrory J. Electromyographic changes in the
gluteus medius during stair ascent and descent in subjects with anterior knee
pain. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol.
Arthrosc. 2003; 11:244Y51.
12. Chester R, et al. The relative timing of VMO and VL in the aetiology of
anterior knee pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculo-
skelet. Disord. 2008; 9:64.
13. Cheung R, Davis IS. Landing pattern modification to improve patellofemoral
pain in runners: a case series. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2011; 41:914Y9.
14. Christou EA. Patellar taping increases vastus medialis oblique activity in the
presence of patellofemoral pain. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2004; 14:495Y504.
15. Collado H, Fredericson M. Patellofemoral pain syndrome. Clin. Sports Med.
2010; 29:379Y98.
16. Collins N, et al. Foot orthoses and physiotherapy in the treatment of
patellofemoral pain syndrome: randomised clinical trial. Br. J. Sports Med.
2009; 43:169Y71.
17. Collins NJ, et al. Prognostic factors for patellofemoral pain: a multicentre
observational analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2013; 47:227Y33.
18. Cowan SM, Hodges PW, Bennell KL, Crossley KM. Altered vastii recruit-
ment when people with patellofemoral pain syndrome complete a postural
task. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2002; 83:989Y95.
19. Cowan SM, Bennell KL, Hodges PW. Therapeutic patellar taping changes the
timing of vasti muscle activation in people with patellofemoral pain syn-
drome. Clin. J. Sport Med. 2002; 12:339Y47.
20. Crossley K, et al. Patellar taping: is clinical success supported by scientific
evidence? Man. Ther. 2000; 5:142Y50.
21. Crowell HP, Milner CE, Hamill J, Davis IS. Reducing impact loading during
running with the use of real-time visual feedback. J. Orthop. Sports Phys.
Ther. 2010; 40:206Y13.
22. Derasari A, et al. McConnell taping shifts the patella inferiorly in patients
with patellofemoral pain: a dynamic magnetic resonance imaging study.
Phys. Ther. 2010; 90:411Y9.
23. Devereaux M, Luchmann S. Patellofemoral arthralgia in athletes attending a
sports injury clinic. Br. J. Sports Med. 1984; 18:18Y21.
24. Dierks TA, Manal KT, Hamill J, Davis IS. Proximal and distal influences on
hip and knee kinematics in runners with patellofemoral pain during a
prolonged run. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2008; 38:448Y56.
25. Dolak KL, et al. Hip strengthening prior to functional exercises reduces pain
sooner than quadriceps strengthening in females with patellofemoral pain
syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2011;
41:560Y70.
26. Dursun N, Dursun E, Kilic Z. Electromyographic biofeedback-controlled
exercise versus conservative care for patellofemoral pain syndrome. Arch.
Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2001; 82:1692Y5.
27. Draper CE, et al. Using real-time MRI to quantify altered joint kinematics in
subjects with patellofemoral pain and to evaluate the effects of a patellar
brace or sleeve on joint motion. J. Orthop. Res. 2009; 27:571Y7.
28. Dye SF. The pathophysiology of patellofemoral pain: a tissue homeostasis
perspective. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2005; 436:100Y10.
29. Earl JE, Hoch AZ. A proximal strengthening program improves pain, func-
tion, and biomechanics in women with patellofemoral pain syndrome. Am. J.
Sports Med. 2011; 39:154Y63.
30. Elias JJ, Kilambi S, Goerke DR, Cosgarea AJ. Improving vastus medialis
obliquus function reduces pressure applied to lateral patellofemoral carti-
lage. J. Orthop. Res. 2009; 27:578Y83.
31. Escamilla RF, et al. Biomehcanics of the knee during closed kinetic chain and
open kinetic chain exercises. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1998; 30:556Y9.
32. Farahmand F, Senavongse W, Amis AA. Quantitative study of the quadriceps
muscles and trochlear groove geometry related to instability of the patel-
lofemoral joint. J. Orthop. Res. 1998; 16:136Y43.
33. Fredericson M, Powers CM. Practical management of patellofemoral pain.
Clin. J. Sport Med. 2002; 12:36Y8.
34. Fukuda TY, et al. Short-term effects of hip abductors and lateral rotators
strengthening in females with patellofemoral pain syndrome: a randomized
controlled clinical trial. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2010; 20:736Y42.
35. Fukuda TY, et al. Hip posterolateral musculature strengthening in sedentary
women with patellofemoral pain syndrome: a randomized controlled clinical
trial with 1-year follow-up. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2012; 42:823Y30.
36. Heiderscheit BC, et al. Effects of step rate manipulation on joint mechanics
during running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2011; 43:296Y302.
Current Sports Medicine Reports 177
37. Hudson Z, Darthuy E. Iliotibial band tightness and patellofemoral pain
syndrome: a case-control study. Man. Ther. 2009; 14:147Y51.
38. Ireland ML, et al. Hip strength in females with and without patellofemoral
pain. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2003; 33:671Y6.
39. Jan M, et al. Differences in sonographic characteristics of the vastus medialis
obliquus between patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome and healthy
adults. Am. J. Sports Med. 2009; 37:1743Y9.
40. Johnston LB, Gross MT. Effects of foot orthoses on quality of life for in-
dividuals with patellofemoral pain syndrome. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther.
2004; 34:440Y8.
41. Khayambashi K, et al. The effects of isolated hip abductor and external ro-
tator muscle strengthening on pain, health status, and hip strength in females
with patellofemoral pain: a randomized controlled trial. J. Orthop. Sports
Phys. Ther. 2012; 42:22Y9.
42. Kwak SD, et al. Hamstrings and iliotibial band forces affect knee kinematics
and contact pattern. J. Orthop. Res. 2000; 18:101Y8.
43. Lenhart RL, et al. Increasing running step rate reduces patellofemoral joint
forces. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2014; 46(3):557Y564.
44. Lin F, Wang G, Koh JL, et al. In vivo and noninvasive three-dimensional
patellar tracking induced by individual heads of quadriceps. Med. Sci. Sports
Exerc. 2004; 36:93Y101.
45. Mason M, Keays SL, Newcombe PA. The effect of taping, quadriceps
strengthening and stretching prescribed separately or combined on patel-
lofemoral pain. Physiother. Res. Int. 2011; 16:109Y19.
46. Merican AM, Amis AA. Iliotibial band tension affects patellofemoral and
tibiofemoral kinematics. J. Biomech. 2009; 42:1539Y46.
47. Messier SP, et al. Etiologic factors associated with patellofemoral pain in
runners. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1991; 23:1008Y15.
48. Miller MD, Hinkin DT, Wisnowski JW. The efficacy of orthotics for anterior
knee pain in military trainees: a preliminary report. Am. J. Knee Surg. 1997;
10:10Y13.
49. Mirzabeigi E, Jordan C, Gronley JK. Isolation of the vastus medialis oblique
muscle during exercise. Am. J. Sports Med. 1999; 27:50Y3.
50. Moyano FR, et al. Effectiveness of different exercises and stretching phys-
iotherapy on pain and movement in patellofemoral pain syndrome: a ran-
domized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2012; 27:409Y17.
51. Nakagawa TH, et al. The effect of additional strengthening of hip abductor
and lateral rotator muscles in patellofemoral pain syndrome: a randomized
controlled pilot study. Clin. Rehabil. 2008; 22:1051Y60.
52. Nakagawa TH, Moriya ET, Maciel CD, Serrao FV. Trunk, pelvis, hip, and
knee kinematics, hip strength, and gluteal muscle activation during a single-
leg squat in males and females with and without patellofemoral pain syn-
drome. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2012; 42:491Y501.
53. Ng GY, Zhang AQ, Li CK. Biofeedback exercise improved the EMG activity
ratio of the medial and lateral vasti muscles in subjects with patellofemoral
pain syndrome. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2008; 18:128Y133.
54. Noehren B, Scholz J, Davis I. The effect of real-time gait retraining on hip
kinematics, pain and function in subjects with patellofemoral pain syndrome.
Br. J. Sports Med. 2011; 45:691Y6.
55. Pal S, et al. Patellar maltracking correlates with vastus medialis activation
delay in patellofemoral pain patients. Am. J. Sports Med. 2011; 39:590Y8.
56. Pal S, et al. Patellar tilt correlates with vastus lateralis:vastus medialis acti-
vation ratio in maltracking patellofemoral pain patients. J. Orthop. Res.
2012; 30:927Y33.
57. Pattyn E, et al. Vastus medialis obliquus atrophy: does it exist in patellofem-
oral pain syndrome? Am. J. Sports Med. 2011; 39:1450Y5.
58. Peeler J, Esther J. Effectiveness of static quadriceps stretching in individuals
with patellofemoral joint pain. Clin. J. Sport Med. 2007; 17:234Y41.
59. Powers CM, et al. Patellofemoral kinematics during weight-bearing and non-
weight-bearing knee extension in persons with lateral subluxation of the
patella: a preliminary study. Br. J. Sports Med. 2003; 45:691Y6.
60. Powers CM, et al. Patellofemoral pain: proximal, distal, and local factors. J.
Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2012; 42:A1Y54.
61. Powers C, Berke G, Fredericson M. Point-Counterpoint: orthotics for
patellofemoral pain. PM R. 2010; 2:771Y6.
62. Powers CM, et al. The effect of bracing on patella alignment and
patellofemoral joint contact area. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2004; 36:1226Y32.
63. Powers CM, et al. The effects of patellar taping on stride characteristics and
joint motion in subjects with patellofemoral pain. J. Orthop. Sports Phys.
Ther. 1997; 26:286Y91.
178 Volume 13 & Number 3 & May/June 2014
Copyright © 2014 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
64. Powers CM, Landel R, Perry J. Timing and intensity of vastus muscle activity
during functional activities in subjects with and without patellofemoral pain.
Phys. Ther. 1996; 76:946Y55.
65. Puniello M. Iliotibial band tightness and medial patellar glide in patients with
patellofemoral dysfunction. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 1993; 17:144Y8.
66. Reischl SF, Powers CM, Rao S, Perry J. The relationship between foot pro-
nation and rotation of the tibia and femur during walking. Foot Ankle Int.
1999; 20:513Y20.
67. Rodrigues P, Trampas T, Van Emmerik R, Hamill J. Evaluating runners with
and without anterior knee pain using the time to contact the ankle joint
complexes’ range of motion boundary. Gait Posture. 2014; 39:48Y53.
68. Salsich GB, Brechter JH, Farwell D, Powers CM. The effects of patellar
taping on knee kinetics, kinematics, and vastus lateralis muscle activity
during stair ambulation in individuals with patellofemoral pain. J. Orthop.
Sports Phys. Ther. 2002; 32:3Y10.
69. Souza DR, Gross MT. Comparison of vastus medialis obliquus: vastus
lateralis muscle integrated electromyographic ratios between healthy subjects
and patients with patellofemoral pain. Phys. Ther. 1991; 71:310Y6.
70. Souza RB, et al. Femur rotation and patellofemoral joint kinematics: a
weight-bearing magnetic resonance imaging analysis. J. Orthop. Sports Phys.
Ther. 2010; 40:277Y85.
71. Souza RB, Powers CM. Predictors of hip rotation during running: an evalu-
ation of hip strength and femoral structure in women with and without
patellofemoral pain. Am. J. Sports Med. 2009; 37:579Y87.
72. Stathopulu E, Baildam E. Anterior knee pain: a long term follow-up. Rheu-
matology. 2003; 42:380Y2.
73. Steinkamp LA, et al. Biomechanical considerations in patellofemoral joint
rehabilitation. Am. J. Sports Med. 1993; 21:438Y44.
74. Syme G, Rowe P, Martin D, et al. Disability in patients with chronic
patellofemoral pain syndrome: a randomised controlled trial of VMO se-
lective training versus general quadriceps strengthening. Man. Ther. 2009;
14:252Y63.
75. Thijs Y, De Clercq D, Roosen P, Witvrouw E. Gait-related intrinsic risk
factors for patellofemoral pain in novice recreational runners. Br. J. Sports
Med. 2008; 42:466Y71.
76. Tiberio D. The effect of excessive subtalar joint pronation on patellofemoral
mechanics: a theoretical model. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 1987; 9:160Y5.
77. Vicenzino B, Collins N, Cleland J, McPoil T. A clinical prediction rule for
identifying patients with patellofemoral pain who are likely to benefit from foot
orthoses: a preliminary determination. Br. J. Sports Med. 2010; 44:862Y6.
78. Voight ML, Wieder DL. Comparative reflex response times of vastus
medialis obliquus and vastus lateralis in normal subjects and subjects with
extensor mechanism dysfunction. An electromyographic study. Am. J. Sports
Med. 1991; 19:131Y7.
79. Whittingham M, Palmer S, Macmillan F. Effects of taping on pain and
function in patellofemoral pain syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.
J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2004; 34: 504Y10.
80. Willson JD, Binder-Macleod S, Davis IS. Lower extremity jumping me-
chanics of female athletes with and without patellofemoral pain before and
after exertion. Am. J. Sports Med. 2008; 36:1587Y96.
81. Willson JD, Davis IS. Lower extremity mechanics of females with and
without patellofemoral pain across activities with progressively greater task
demands. Clin. Biomech. 2008; 23:203Y11.
82. Willy RW, Scholz JP, Davis IS. Mirror gait retraining for the treatment of
patellofemoral pain in female runners. Clin. Biomech. 2012; 27:1045Y51.
83. Willy RW, Davis IS. The effect of a hip-strengthening program on mechanics
during running and during a single-leg squat. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther.
2011; 41:625Y32.
84. Witvrouw E, Lysens R, Bellemans J, et al. Open versus closed kinetic chain
exercises for patellofemoral pain: a prospective, randomized study. Am. J.
Sports Med. 2000; 28:687Y94.
85. Witvrouw E, et al. Reflex response times of vastus medialis oblique and
vastus lateralis in normal subjects and in subjects with patellofemoral pain
syndrome. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 1996; 24:160Y5.
86. Wong YM. Recording the vastii muscle onset timing as a diagnostic parameter
for patellofemoral pain syndrome: fact or fad? Phys. Ther. Sport. 2009; 10:71Y4.
87. Wu CC, Shih CH. The influence of iliotibial tract on patellar tracking. Or-
thopedics. 2004; 27:199Y203.
88. Yip SLM, Ng GYF. Biofeedback supplementation to physiotherapy exercise
programme for rehabilitation of patellofemoral pain syndrome: a random-
ized controlled study. Clin. Rehabil. 2006; 20:1050Y7.
Rehabilitation of Patellofemoral Pain