J Sport Rehabil. 2019 Oct 18;29(5):547-554. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2018-0171. Print 2020 Jul 1.
Protonics™ knee brace has been suggested as an intervention for patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome. However, the effectiveness of this knee brace compared with traditional conservative methods knee rehabilitation is lacking.
To compare the effect of Protonics™ knee brace versus sport cord on knee pain and function in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome.
Randomized controlled trial.
Loma Linda University.
There were 41 subjects with patellofemoral pain with a mean age of 28.8 (5.0) years and body mass index of 25.6 (4.7) kg/m2 participated in the study.
Subjects were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups, the Protonics™ knee brace (n = 21) or the sport cord (n = 20) to complete a series of resistance exercises over the course of 4 weeks.
Both groups were evaluated according to the following clinical outcomes: anterior pelvic tilt, hip internal/external rotation, and iliotibial band flexibility. The following functional outcomes were also assessed: Global Rating of Change Scale, the Kujala score, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and the lateral step-down test.
Both groups showed significant improvement in the outcome measures. However, the Protonics™ knee brace was more effective than the sport cord for the Global Rating of Change Scale over time (immediate 1.0 [2.1] vs post 2 wk 3.0 [2.2] vs 4 wk 4.6 [2.3] in the Protonics™ brace compared with 0.0 [2.1] vs 1.3 [2.2] vs 3.0 [2.3] in the sport cord, P < .01), suggesting greater satisfaction.
Both study groups had significant improvements in the clinical and functional symptoms of patellofemoral pain. The Protonics™ knee brace group was significantly more satisfied with their outcome. However, the sport cord may be a more feasible and cost-effective method that yields similar results in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome.
质子®膝关节支具已被提议作为髌股疼痛综合征患者的一种干预措施。然而,与传统的保守方法——膝关节康复相比,这种膝关节支具的效果尚不清楚。
比较质子®膝关节支具与运动带在髌股疼痛综合征患者中的膝关节疼痛和功能的效果。
随机对照试验。
洛马林达大学。
共有 41 名髌股疼痛患者参与了这项研究,平均年龄 28.8(5.0)岁,体重指数 25.6(4.7)kg/m2。
受试者被随机分配到 2 个治疗组中的 1 个,质子®膝关节支具(n = 21)或运动带(n = 20),以在 4 周的时间内完成一系列阻力运动。
两组均根据以下临床结果进行评估:前骨盆倾斜度、髋关节内/外旋和髂胫束柔韧性。还评估了以下功能结果:整体变化量表、Kujala 评分、数字疼痛评分和侧向踏步测试。
两组的结果均有显著改善。然而,质子®膝关节支具在整体变化量表上的效果优于运动带,且随时间推移具有统计学意义(质子®支具组即时 1.0[2.1],2 周后 3.0[2.2],4 周后 4.6[2.3],而运动带组分别为 0.0[2.1],1.3[2.2],3.0[2.3],P<.01),提示满意度更高。
两组患者髌股疼痛的临床和功能症状均有显著改善。质子®膝关节支具组对其结果的满意度明显更高。然而,运动带可能是一种更可行且具有成本效益的方法,对髌股疼痛综合征患者的效果相似。