Next Article in Journal
“Compassionate City” in Patients with Advanced Illnesses and at the End of Life: A Pilot Study
Previous Article in Journal
Thrombectomy-Capable Stroke Centre—A Key to Acute Stroke Care System Improvement? Retrospective Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of Endovascular Treatment in Cardiac Cathlab
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 3
10.3390/ijerph20032233
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of Functional Outcomes between Supervised Rehabilitation and Telerehabilitation in Female Patients with Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome during the COVID-19 Pandemic

by
Jin Hyuck Lee
1,†,
Ki Hun Shin
1,†,
Gyu Bin Lee
1,
Seiwook Son
2 and
Ki-Mo Jang
1,2,*
1
Department of Sports Medical Center, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(3), 2233; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032233
Submission received: 30 December 2022 / Revised: 23 January 2023 / Accepted: 25 January 2023 / Published: 26 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recovery of Muscle Performance after Conservative and Surgical Treatment in Musculoskeletal Injury)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is a common cause of anterior knee pain, and therapeutic exercises are recommended. During the COVID-19 pandemic, despite recommendations on the importance of telerehabilitation, insufficient studies have investigated functional outcomes between supervised rehabilitation and telerehabilitation in patients with PFPS. This study aimed to compare the muscle strength, muscle activation time, and patient-reported outcomes between supervised rehabilitation and telerehabilitation in female patients with PFPS. A total of 61 patients (supervised, n = 30; telerehabilitation, n = 31) participated. Muscle strength and activation time of the quadriceps and hamstrings were measured using an isokinetic device. Hip muscle strength was evaluated using a hand-held dynamometer. Patient-reported outcomes were measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS) for functional ability, and Tampa scale for kinesiophobia (TSK-11). No significant differences were found in muscle strength, muscle activation time, or patient-reported outcomes of the involved knees between the two groups (p > 0.05). In addition, the rate of change in all parameters did not significantly differ between the two groups (p > 0.05). Telerehabilitation, such as a home-exercise program supervised by physical therapists, may be as effective as supervised rehabilitation in improving functional outcomes in female patients with PFPS.

1. Introduction

Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is commonly described as pain around the patella and complaints of aggravated knee pain from jumping, running, kneeling, long hours of sitting, and climbing up or down stairs [1]. PFPS may be caused by various factors, such as quadriceps and hip muscle weakness, muscle imbalance and inflexibility, foot and ankle postures, prolonged muscle activation, and lack of proprioception and neuromuscular control [2,3]. Hence, therapeutic exercise treatment may be recommended in preference to surgical treatment [4,5,6].
Telerehabilitation (tele-rehab) was developed as a home treatment after acute care [7,8] and has been further developed as a treatment method by telecommunication to compensate for the traditional face-to-face treatment method. In 2019, the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 started, and governments around the world began to propose several systems, such as quarantine, occupancy restrictions, and social distancing. Hence, several recent studies have compared functional outcomes in supervised rehabilitation (supervised-rehab) and tele-rehab in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak [9,10,11]. In this situation, tele-rehab is strongly recommended because it has the benefits of less time and lower costs [9,10]. In recent studies, tele-rehab has been proven effective in improving functional outcomes in patients with hip arthroplasty [9], knee osteoarthritis (OA) [12], and low back pain [10]. However, to date, insufficient studies have investigated functional outcomes in terms of muscle strength, muscle activation time, and patient-reported outcomes (including the visual analog scale [VAS], Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS), and Tampa scale for kinesiophobia [TSK-11]) between supervised-rehab and tele-rehab in patients with PFPS.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, our institution also offered treatment with social distancing, such as limiting the number of visiting patients. Therefore, the study aimed to compare the muscle strength of the quadriceps, hamstring, and hip muscles, muscle activation time of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles, and patient-reported outcomes between supervised-rehab and tele-rehab in female patients with PFPS. We hypothesized that tele-rehab would be as effective as supervised-rehab in improving functional outcomes in female patients with PFPS.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Subjects

This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and informed consent was obtained from all patients or their legal guardians. This prospective comparative study was approved by the institutional review board of our institution (No. 2017AN0830), and 72 female patients with anterior knee pain were consecutively recruited between February 2019 and January 2020. Seventy-two female patients diagnosed with PFPS by an orthopedic surgeon were identified through physical examination, medical record reviews, plain radiography, and magnetic resonance imaging to confirm abnormal patellofemoral bony structures and cartilage lesions. For a diagnosis of PFPS, patients needed to have at least two anterior or retropatellar knee pain during functional activities such as running, jumping, kneeling, long hours of sitting, and climbing up or down stairs [1]. In this study, only female patients with PFPS who had a high training adherence rate >80% were included. A training adherence rate >80% was clinically meaningful to facilitate the effectiveness of the intervention [13,14]. Therefore, based on a previous study [15], the adherence rate was measured by the total number of sessions performed by the participant divided by the total number of treatment sessions. We excluded 11 patients for the following reasons: training adherence rate <80%, chondromalacia, OA, prior knee surgery, and spine and vestibular disorders [16,17]. In addition, patients who were unable to complete the isokinetic test with pain were excluded. Of the 72 female patients enrolled (Figure 1), 11 were excluded and 61 were analyzed in the present study; they were divided into the supervised-rehab (n = 30) and tele-rehab (n = 31) groups.

2.2. Isokinetic Knee Muscle Strength and Muscle Activation Time

The muscle strength and activation time of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles were measured using an isokinetic device (Biodex Multi-Joint System 4, Biodex Medical Systems, Inc., Shirley, NY, USA). In the sitting position with 90° flexion of the hip and knee joints, the lateral femoral condyle of the knee joint was aligned with the rotational center of an isokinetic dynamometer and then evaluated for hamstring and quadriceps muscle strength with 90° knee flexion angle and 0° knee extension angle, respectively. Before starting this test, a warm-up set was performed with five repetitions of knee extension/flexion at a sub-maximal intensity at 180°/s. Muscle strength was measured by peak torque during five maximal repetitions of flexion and extension motions at 180°/s, and peak torque normalized to the body weight (peak torque/body weight, N·m·kg−1 × 100) was used to evaluate muscle strength [18,19]. In this study, the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were 0.89 and 0.84 for the quadriceps and hamstring muscles, respectively. Muscle activation time was assessed using the acceleration time (AT, milliseconds), defined as the time it took for the pre-set angular velocity (180°/s in our study) during maximal contraction [18,19,20]. Acceleration and velocity can affect the arthrokinetic reflex, which is closely related to the mechanism of muscle activation [20,21]. Thus, a rapid AT indicates superior muscle activation responses, which can affect neuromuscular control, defined as unconscious activation between muscles and motor neurons to maintain and restore functional joint stability [22]. In the present study, the ICCs were 0.82 and 0.79 for the quadriceps and hamstring muscles, respectively.

2.3. Isometric Hip Muscle Strength

Isometric hip muscle strength was measured using a hand-held dynamometer (microFET2, Hoggan Scientific, LLC, Salt Lake City, UT, USA). Based on a previous study [23], for evaluating posterolateral hip complex strength such as hip abductor and external rotator [24], the hip stability isometric test (HipSIT) was performed with the leg facing up, while the participant maintained 45° flexion and 20° abduction of the hip joint and 90˚ flexion of the knee joint in a side-lying position. The HipSIT was performed twice in total, with a rest period of 30 s between measurements, and the average value was recorded. The measured muscle strength value (kilogram-force, kgf) was normalized to the weight of each participant (strength/body mass), and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was 0.036 kgf/kg [23]. In a previous study [23], intra-rater and inter-rater ICCs for the HipSIT were 0.981 and 0.981, respectively. In the present study, the ICC was 0.946. Mentiplay et al. [25]. reported that isometric hip muscle strength showed moderate to excellent validity between a hand-held and isokinetic dynamometry.

2.4. Patient-Reported Outcomes

Isokinetic VAS and AKPS were used to evaluate pain and knee function, respectively [18,19]. VAS was recorded as the worst pain during active movement. A score of 0 indicated no pain, and a score of 10 indicated worst pain. The AKPS consists of 13 questions and can be evaluated on a scale of 0–100. A lower score indicates greater discomfort and disability. Based on a previous study in patients with PFPS [26], the MCID for the VAS and AKPS were 1.5–2.0 points and 8–10 points, respectively, and the ICCs were 0.88 and 0.81 for the VAS and AKPS, respectively. The TSK-11 was used to assess the fear of reinjury or movement. According to a previous study [27], fear of pain or movement, rather than the pain itself, may have a greater influence on the disability. The TSK-11 consists of 11 questions, with total scores ranging from 11 to 44. The higher the score, the greater the fear of reinjury or movement. In a previous study, the MCID was 4 points [28] and the ICC was 0.64–0.91 [29].

2.5. Conservative Rehabilitation Protocol and Interventions

All participants followed the same rehabilitation protocol for both knees. The exercise program was performed three times a week for 6 weeks [30], which aimed to improve flexibility, strength, proprioception, and neuromuscular control, and consisted of open and closed kinetic chain (CKC) exercises (Supplementary file). The exercise program included the stretching, strengthening of the hip, knee, and core muscles, and balance exercises. (1) The supervised-rehab group visited our institution and performed an exercise program for 50 min, three times a week. The exercise program was performed by the same physical therapists, and the exercise intensity was determined by the evaluation and discretion of the physical therapists according to the patient’s symptoms. (2) The tele-rehab group was educated about the exercise program once and received a brochure with pictures and videos of the exercise program. The participants were instructed to execute the exercise interventions for 50 min, three times a week. The physical therapists in charge provided counseling and guidance on exercise progress, maintaining daily activities, and symptom improvement through text messages and phone calls, three times a week. If needed, physical therapists consulted on the exercise program through video calls. The physical therapists monitored adherence to the home exercise program.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Based on a previous study on quadriceps strength in patients with PFPS [18,19], a difference >10% in quadriceps strength was regarded as a clinical difference between the PFPS patient group. A priori power analysis was performed to determine the sample size at a power of 0.8 and α level of 0.05. The results of a pilot study involving five knees in each group indicated that each group should include sixteen knees to detect a significant difference in quadriceps strength of >10% between the two groups (Cohen’s d: 1.042). Therefore, in the present study, we recruited 30 female patients with PFPS for the supervised-rehab group and 31 female patients for the tele-rehab group. The power of this study was 0.813. All continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Student’s t-test was used to compare the differences in the muscle strength of the quadriceps, hamstring, and hip muscles, muscle activation time for quadriceps and hamstring muscles, and patient-reported outcomes between the supervised-rehab and tele-rehab groups. The paired t-test was used to compare two related variables before and after the intervention in the involved knees of each patient in both groups. To determine whether a continuous variable followed a normal distribution, the Shapiro–Wilk test was used. Significance was defined as a p-value of less than 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0 (IBM corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

Table 1 shows the demographic data of the participants, and no significant differences were found in sex, age, height, weight, and body mass index, Tegner activity scale score, and duration of injury (p > 0.05).

3.1. Comparison of Muscle Strength and Muscle Activation Time between the Two Groups

There were no statistically significant differences in the muscle strength for the quadriceps, hamstring, and hip muscles between the supervised-rehab and tele-rehab groups (p > 0.05, Table 2). The AT for the quadriceps and hamstring muscles was not statistically significantly different between the supervised-rehab and tele-rehab groups (p > 0.05, Table 2). In addition, the rate of change in the muscle strength and reaction time also did not significantly differ between the two groups (p > 0.05, Figure 2).

3.2. Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes between the Two Groups

No significant differences were found in the VAS, AKPS, or TSK-11 scores between the two groups (p > 0.05, Table 3). In addition, the rate of change in the VAS, AKPS, and TSK-11 scores did not significantly differ between the two groups (p > 0.05, Figure 2).

3.3. Comparison of Muscle Strength, Muscle Activation Time, and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Each Group

In each group, there were significant improvements in the muscle strength of the quadriceps (supervised: p < 0.001, tele-rehab: p < 0.001), hamstring (supervised: p < 0.001, tele-rehab: p < 0.001), and hip muscles (supervised: p < 0.001, tele-rehab: p < 0.001,) in the involved knees post-intervention compared to that with pre-intervention (Table 2). The AT of the quadriceps (supervised: p < 0.001, tele-rehab: p < 0.001) and hamstring muscles (supervised: p < 0.001, tele-rehab: p < 0.001) was significantly improved in the involved knees post-intervention compared to those with pre-intervention in each group (Table 2). Patient-reported outcomes, including VAS (supervised: p < 0.001, tele-rehab: p < 0.001), AKPS (supervised: p < 0.001, tele-rehab: p < 0.001), and TSK-11 (supervised: p < 0.001, tele-rehab: p < 0.001), were significantly improved in the involved knees post-intervention compared to those with pre-intervention in each group (Table 3).

3.4. Correlations between Adherence Rate and Rate of Change in Muscle Strength, Muscle Activation Time, and Patient-Reported Outcomes

Correlations between adherence rate and rate of change in muscle strength, muscle activation time, and patient-reported outcomes are shown in Table 4. In the supervised-rehab group, there were significantly positive correlations between adherence rate and rate of change in quadriceps (r = 0.516, p = 0.002) and hip muscle strength (r = 0.494, p = 0.006), AT of the quadriceps (r = 0.432, p = 0.021), AKPA score (r = 0.650, p = 0.001), and TSK-11 score (r = 0.444, p = 0.014). In the tele-rehab group, there were significantly positive correlations between adherence rate and rate of change for quadriceps strength (r = 0.637, p = 0.001), AT of the quadriceps (r = 0.371, p = 0.040), VAS score (r = 0.368, p = 0.042), AKPA score (r = 0.456, p = 0.010), and TSK-11 score (r = 0.509, p = 0.003). However, there was no significant correlation between adherence rate and hamstring muscle strength in either group (p > 0.05).

4. Discussion

The most important result of this study was that the muscle strength of the quadriceps, hamstring, and hip muscles, muscle activation time of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles, and patient-reported outcomes did not significantly differ between the supervised-rehab and tele-rehab groups.
In this study, no significant differences were found in the muscle strength of the quadriceps, hamstring, and hip muscles between the two groups. Although the reason for this result is unclear, it may be explained by adherence to training. Muscle strength can be improved by various factors such as nutrition, overloading weights, training status, and training adherence [31,32,33,34,35]. Among them, training adherence plays an important role in home-based exercise [31,34]. Specifically, a high level of training adherence may be the most important component in promoting the optimal effectiveness of an exercise program [13,36,37]. In a recent study, Hanson et al. [14] reported that high adherence to home-based exercise can improve muscle strength. In tele-rehab of the present study, it is believed that the physical therapists in charge increased the patient’s exercise adherence directly or indirectly through phone or video calls three times a week for 6 weeks. Therefore, tele-rehab managed by physical therapists may increase patient participation in exercise, resulting in increased patient exercise adherence; hence, there may be no difference in muscle strength between the supervised-rehab and tele-rehab groups because of the patient’s high exercise adherence, equal to that with supervised-rehab.
In the present study, the muscle activation time of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles did not show any significant differences between the two groups. A possible explanation for this result might be the use of the same rehabilitation protocol, such as dynamic stretching and CKC exercises with controlled lower extremity alignment. Dynamic stretching [18,38] and CKC [39,40] exercises may improve motor neurons, which may affect muscle activation [22,38,39]. Specifically, motor neurons activation may be improved by eccentric contraction [41] from dynamic stretching and CKC exercises. According to several previous studies [39,40,41], eccentric contraction may be more favorable for muscle activation than concentric contraction. Therefore, in the present study, both dynamic stretching and CKC exercises were performed and emphasized in both of the groups. Specifically, enhanced motor neuron and muscle activation may improve neuromuscular control [37,39,42,43], which may affect patient-reported outcomes [19,44]. Zech et al. [45] and Riemann and Lephart [22] reported that impaired neuromuscular function is considered the cause of persistent functional deficits, such as reduced maximal muscle strength, poor postural control, or prolonged muscle activation time. Therefore, persistent functional deficits lead to fear of movement [46,47], which may reduce training adherence [46], resulting in long-term mental, psychological, and functional deficits [48,49]. However, both supervised-rehab and tele-rehab may improve self-efficacy by increasing patients’ exercise participation and adherence [34,46,50]. In the present study, both muscle activation time and patient-reported outcomes (VAS, AKPS, and TSK-11) were significantly improved in both groups, which may explain the lack of differences in muscle activation time and patient-reported outcomes between the supervised-rehab and tele-rehab groups.
Azma et al. [12] reported no differences in patient-reported outcomes, such as VAS, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) scale score, in tele-rehab by a versed expert compared with those obtained with supervised-rehab in patients with knee OA. Albornoz-Cabello et al. [11] investigated patient-reported outcomes between using informative leaflets and tele-rehab managed by physical therapists in patients with PFPS. The authors found greater effectiveness in improving VAS, AKPS, and perception of neuropathic pain (DN4) in the tele-rehab managed by physical therapists than in the informative leaflet group. In addition, Rhim et al. [51] investigated patient-reported outcomes, such as VAS, KOOS, and TSK-11, between tele-rehab without the management of physical therapists (modeling video program vs. PowerPoint slides video) in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The authors found that patient-reported outcomes did not differ before and after interventions in either group. These findings indicate that tele-rehab managed by physical therapists may improve psychological and functional abilities [46].
This study has several limitations. First, no normal control group was included. Second, there may be a limit to generalizing the effect of tele-rehab owing to various factors such as age, physical activity, and sex, because only female patients with PFPS participated in our study [52]; thus, further studies are needed to clarify the results of this study. Finally, this study was a quasi-experimental study without randomization. Therefore, further high-quality studies with randomization and long-term follow-up are necessary to more clearly elucidate the results of this study.

5. Conclusions

Functional outcomes in both the supervised and telerehabilitation groups were significantly improved. Therefore, telerehabilitation, such as a home-exercise program supervised by physical therapists, may be as effective as supervised rehabilitation in improving functional outcomes in female patients with PFPS. Furthermore, telerehabilitation may be a suitable treatment method to improve psychological and functional ability during a pandemic, such as COVID-19. However, further studies are needed to determine whether a home-exercise program individually performed without the supervision of physical therapists is as effective as telerehabilitation.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph20032233/s1, File S1: Exercise program.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.H.L., K.H.S., G.B.L. and K.-M.J.; Methodology, J.H.L. and K.H.S.; Software, G.B.L.; Validation, J.H.L. and K.H.S.; Formal Analysis, J.H.L. and K.H.S.; Investigation, K.H.S. and G.B.L.; Resources, J.H.L. and K.H.S.; Data Curation, J.H.L., K.H.S. and G.B.L.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, J.H.L. and K.H.S.; Writing—Review and Editing, J.H.L., S.S. and K.-M.J.; Visualization, J.H.L., K.H.S. and G.B.L.; Supervision, K.-M.J.; Project Administration, K.-M.J.; Funding Acquisition, K.-M.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by a Korea University grant (K2208461).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Korea University Anam Hospital (protocol code: 2017AN0830; date of approval: 11 December 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Witvrouw, E.; Werner, S.; Mikkelsen, C.; Van Tiggelen, D.; Vanden Berghe, L.; Cerulli, G. Clinical classification of patellofemoral pain syndrome: Guidelines for non-operative treatment. Knee Surg. Sport. Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2005, 13, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Neal, B.S.; Lack, S.D.; Lankhorst, N.E.; Raye, A.; Morrissey, D.; van Middelkoop, M. Risk factors for patellofemoral pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sport. Med. 2019, 53, 270–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Aminaka, N.; Pietrosimone, B.G.; Armstrong, C.W.; Meszaros, A.; Gribble, P.A. Patellofemoral pain syndrome alters neuromuscular control and kinetics during stair ambulation. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2011, 21, 645–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Richmond, S.A.; Kang, J.; Doyle-Baker, P.K.; Nettel-Aguirre, A.; Emery, C.A. A school-based injury prevention program to reduce sport injury risk and improve healthy outcomes in youth: A pilot cluster-randomized controlled trial. Clin. J. Sport Med. 2016, 26, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. van der Heijden, R.A.; Lankhorst, N.E.; van Linschoten, R.; Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M.; van Middelkoop, M. Exercise for treating patellofemoral pain syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 1, Cd010387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Young, J.L.; Snodgrass, S.J.; Cleland, J.A.; Rhon, D.I. Usual medical care for patellofemoral pain does not usually involve much care: 2-year follow-up in the military health system. J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. Ther. 2021, 51, 305–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Holden, M.K.; Dyar, T.A.; Schwamm, L.; Bizzi, E.J.P.T. Virtual-environment-based telerehabilitation in patients with stroke. Presence Teleoperat. Virtual Environ. 2005, 14, 214–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Reinkensmeyer, D.J.; Pang, C.T.; Nessler, J.A.; Painter, C.C. Web-based telerehabilitation for the upper extremity after stroke. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2002, 10, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nelson, M.; Bourke, M.; Crossley, K.; Russell, T. Telerehabilitation versus traditional care following total hip replacement: A randomized controlled trial protocol. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2017, 6, e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Castro-Sanchez, A.M.; Matarán-Peñarrocha, G.A.; Gómez-García, S.; García-López, H.; Andronis, L.; Albornoz-Cabello, M.; Palomo, I.C.L. Study protocol randomised controlled trial comparison of cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of a face-to-face rehabilitation programme versus a telemedicine programme in the treatment of patients with chronic low back pain. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e040633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Albornoz-Cabello, M.; Barrios-Quinta, C.J.; Barrios-Quinta, A.M.; Escobio-Prieto, I.; Cardero-Durán, M.L.A.; Espejo-Antunez, L. Effectiveness of tele-prescription of therapeutic physical exercise in patellofemoral pain syndrome during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Azma, K.; RezaSoltani, Z.; Rezaeimoghaddam, F.; Dadarkhah, A.; Mohsenolhosseini, S. Efficacy of tele-rehabilitation compared with office-based physical therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial. J. Telemed. Telecare 2018, 24, 560–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kampshoff, C.S.; van Mechelen, W.; Schep, G.; Nijziel, M.R.; Witlox, L.; Bosman, L.; Chinapaw, M.J.; Brug, J.; Buffart, L.M. Participation in and adherence to physical exercise after completion of primary cancer treatment. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016, 13, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Hawley-Hague, H.; Horne, M.; Skelton, D.A.; Todd, C. Review of how we should define (and measure) adherence in studies examining older adults’ participation in exercise classes. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e011560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Lund, L.W.; Ammitzbøll, G.; Hansen, D.G.; Andersen, E.A.W.; Dalton, S.O. Adherence to a long-term progressive resistance training program, combining supervised and home-based exercise for breast cancer patients during adjuvant treatment. Acta Oncol. 2019, 58, 650–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Emamvirdi, M.; Letafatkar, A.; Khaleghi Tazji, M. The effect of valgus control instruction exercises on pain, strength, and functionality in active females with patellofemoral pain syndrome. Sport. Health 2019, 11, 223–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Foroughi, F.; Sobhani, S.; Yoosefinejad, A.K.; Motealleh, A. Added value of isolated core postural control training on knee pain and function in women with patellofemoral pain syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2019, 100, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lee, J.H.; Jang, K.M.; Kim, E.; Rhim, H.C.; Kim, H.D. Static and dynamic quadriceps stretching exercises in patients with patellofemoral pain: A randomized controlled trial. Sport. Health 2021, 13, 482–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lee, J.H.; Jang, K.M.; Kim, E.; Rhim, H.C.; Kim, H.D. Effects of static and dynamic stretching with strengthening exercises in patients with patellofemoral pain who have inflexible hamstrings: A randomized controlled trial. Sport. Health 2021, 13, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. van Cingel, R.E.; Kleinrensink, G.; Uitterlinden, E.J.; Rooijens, P.P.; Mulder, P.G.; Aufdemkampe, G.; Stoeckart, R. Repeated ankle sprains and delayed neuromuscular response: Acceleration time parameters. J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. Ther. 2006, 36, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Heilman, A.E.; Braly, W.G.; Bishop, J.O.; Noble, P.C.; Tullos, H.S. An anatomic study of subtalar instability. Foot Ankle 1990, 10, 224–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Riemann, B.L.; Lephart, S.M. The sensorimotor system, part i: The physiologic basis of functional joint stability. J. Athl. Train. 2002, 37, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Almeida, G.P.L.; das Neves Rodrigues, H.L.; de Freitas, B.W.; de Paula Lima, P.O. Reliability and validity of the hip stability isometric test (hipsit): A new method to assess hip posterolateral muscle strength. J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. Ther. 2017, 47, 906–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Rathleff, M.S.; Rathleff, C.R.; Crossley, K.M.; Barton, C.J. Is hip strength a risk factor for patellofemoral pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sport. Med. 2014, 48, 1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mentiplay, B.F.; Perraton, L.G.; Bower, K.J.; Adair, B.; Pua, Y.H.; Williams, G.P.; McGaw, R.; Clark, R.A. Assessment of lower limb muscle strength and power using hand-held and fixed dynamometry: A reliability and validity study. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0140822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Crossley, K.M.; Bennell, K.L.; Cowan, S.M.; Green, S. Analysis of outcome measures for persons with patellofemoral pain: Which are reliable and valid? Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2004, 85, 815–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Crombez, G.; Vlaeyen, J.W.; Heuts, P.H.; Lysens, R. Pain-related fear is more disabling than pain itself: Evidence on the role of pain-related fear in chronic back pain disability. Pain 1999, 80, 329–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Woby, S.R.; Roach, N.K.; Urmston, M.; Watson, P.J. Psychometric properties of the tsk-11: A shortened version of the tampa scale for kinesiophobia. Pain 2005, 117, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Larsson, C.; Hansson, E.E.; Sundquist, K.; Jakobsson, U. Psychometric properties of the tampa scale of kinesiophobia (tsk-11) among older people with chronic pain. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2014, 30, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ferber, R.; Bolgla, L.; Earl-Boehm, J.E.; Emery, C.; Hamstra-Wright, K. Strengthening of the hip and core versus knee muscles for the treatment of patellofemoral pain: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. J. Athl. Train. 2015, 50, 366–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Hanson, E.D.; Carver, J.L.; Lucas, A.; Bass, M.; Alzer, M.; Whang, Y.; Harrison, M.; Milowsky, M.I.; Bitting, R.L.; Battaglini, C.L.J.M.; et al. High adherence to home-based exercise improves muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness with advanced prostate cancer: 74 board# 5 may 29 9:30 am-11:30 am. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2019, 51, 6–7. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lowe, D.A.; Alway, S.E. Animal models for inducing muscle hypertrophy: Are they relevant for clinical applications in humans? J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. Ther. 2002, 32, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mithal, A.; Bonjour, J.P.; Boonen, S.; Burckhardt, P.; Degens, H.; El Hajj Fuleihan, G.; Josse, R.; Lips, P.; Morales Torres, J.; Rizzoli, R.; et al. Impact of nutrition on muscle mass, strength, and performance in older adults. Osteoporos. Int. 2013, 24, 1555–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sacomori, C.; Berghmans, B.; Mesters, I.; de Bie, R.; Cardoso, F.L. Strategies to enhance self-efficacy and adherence to home-based pelvic floor muscle exercises did not improve adherence in women with urinary incontinence: A randomised trial. J. Physiother. 2015, 61, 190–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Suchomel, T.J.; Nimphius, S.; Bellon, C.R.; Stone, M.H. The importance of muscular strength: Training considerations. Sport. Med. 2018, 48, 765–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. De Geest, S.; Sabaté, E. Adherence to long-term therapies: Evidence for action. Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 2003, 2, 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Witlox, L.; Velthuis, M.J.; Boer, J.H.; Steins Bisschop, C.N.; Wall, E.V.; Meulen, W.; Schröder, C.D.; Peeters, P.H.M.; May, A.M. Attendance and compliance with an exercise program during localized breast cancer treatment in a randomized controlled trial: The pact study. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0215517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Herda, T.J.; Cramer, J.T.; Ryan, E.D.; McHugh, M.P.; Stout, J.R. Acute effects of static versus dynamic stretching on isometric peak torque, electromyography, and mechanomyography of the biceps femoris muscle. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2008, 22, 809–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hedayatpour, N.; Falla, D. Physiological and neural adaptations to eccentric exercise: Mechanisms and considerations for training. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 193741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. McHugh, M.P.; Tyler, T.F.; Greenberg, S.C.; Gleim, G.W. Differences in activation patterns between eccentric and concentric quadriceps contractions. J. Sport. Sci. 2002, 20, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lepley, L.K.; Lepley, A.S.; Onate, J.A.; Grooms, D.R. Eccentric exercise to enhance neuromuscular control. Sport. Health 2017, 9, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Riemann, B.L.; Lephart, S.M. The sensorimotor system, part ii: The role of proprioception in motor control and functional joint stability. J. Athl. Train. 2002, 37, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Semmler, J.G. Motor unit synchronization and neuromuscular performance. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2002, 30, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Rabelo, N.D.; Lima, B.; Reis, A.C.; Bley, A.S.; Yi, L.C.; Fukuda, T.Y.; Costa, L.O.; Lucareli, P.R. Neuromuscular training and muscle strengthening in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome: A protocol of randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2014, 15, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Zech, A.; Hübscher, M.; Vogt, L.; Banzer, W.; Hänsel, F.; Pfeifer, K. Neuromuscular training for rehabilitation of sports injuries: A systematic review. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2009, 41, 1831–1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Nicolson, P.J.A.; Bennell, K.L.; Dobson, F.L.; Van Ginckel, A.; Holden, M.A.; Hinman, R.S. Interventions to increase adherence to therapeutic exercise in older adults with low back pain and/or hip/knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sport. Med. 2017, 51, 791–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Heuts, P.H.; Vlaeyen, J.W.; Roelofs, J.; de Bie, R.A.; Aretz, K.; van Weel, C.; van Schayck, O.C. Pain-related fear and daily functioning in patients with osteoarthritis. Pain 2004, 110, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Vlaeyen, J.W.S.; Linton, S.J. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: A state of the art. Pain 2000, 85, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Asmundson, G.J.; Taylor, S. Role of anxiety sensitivity in pain-related fear and avoidance. J. Behav. Med. 1996, 19, 577–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bennie, J.A.; Teychenne, M.J.; De Cocker, K.; Biddle, S.J.H. Associations between aerobic and muscle-strengthening exercise with depressive symptom severity among 17,839 U.S. Adults. Prev. Med. 2019, 121, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rhim, H.C.; Lee, S.J.; Jeon, J.S.; Kim, G.; Lee, K.Y.; Lee, J.H.; Jang, K.M. Effectiveness of modeling videos on psychological responses of patients following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A pilot randomized trial. Medicine 2020, 99, e23158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Baldon Rde, M.; Serrão, F.V.; Scattone Silva, R.; Piva, S.R. Effects of functional stabilization training on pain, function, and lower extremity biomechanics in women with patellofemoral pain: A randomized clinical trial. J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. Ther. 2014, 44, 240–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 20 02233 g001 550
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
Ijerph 20 02233 g001
Ijerph 20 02233 g002 550
Figure 2. Comparison of the rate of change in muscle strength, muscle activation time, and patient-reported outcomes between the supervised rehabilitation group and telerehabilitation group.
Figure 2. Comparison of the rate of change in muscle strength, muscle activation time, and patient-reported outcomes between the supervised rehabilitation group and telerehabilitation group.
Ijerph 20 02233 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographic data of participants in the supervised-rehab and tele-rehab groups.
Table 1. Demographic data of participants in the supervised-rehab and tele-rehab groups.
Supervised-Rehab Group
(n = 30)		Tele-Rehab Group
(n = 31)		p-Value
Sex (male/female)0/300/31
Age (years) 27.0 ± 2.3926.96 ± 5.990.753
Height (cm) 160.49 ± 4.83159.88 ± 6.110.670
Weight (kg) 56.64 ± 7.6756.51 ± 11.560.788
Body mass index (BMI, kg/m2) 21.92 ± 2.7622.04 ± 3.620.448
Pain duration (month) 26.14 ± 15.9427.45 ± 22.460.753
Tegner activity scale 4.32 ± 0.824.25 ± 1.400.484
Adherence rate (%)98.8 ± 0.398.5 ± 0.30.689
Injured side (right/left)15/1516/15
Leg dominance27/327/4
Supervised-rehab, supervised rehabilitation; Tele-rehab, telerehabilitation. Note: The values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
Table
Table 2. Comparison of the muscle strength and muscle activation time in the supervised-rehab and tele-rehab groups.
Table 2. Comparison of the muscle strength and muscle activation time in the supervised-rehab and tele-rehab groups.
Supervised-Rehab GroupTele-Rehab GroupMD
(95% CI)		Effect Sizep-Value
Hamstring strengthPre-intervention71.6 ± 18.875.3 ± 19.8−3.7 (−13.5 to 6.2)−0.1910.467
Post-intervention87.3 ± 19.293.2 ± 20.4−5.9 (−16.1 to 4.2)−0.2970.251
MD (95% CI)−15.6 (−18.6 to −12.7)−17.9 (−22.3 to −13.6)
Effect size−0.826−0.890
p-value0.001 *0.001 *
Quadriceps strengthPre-intervention146.6 ± 42.9139.6 ± 41.27.0 (−4.4 to 28.6)0.1660.318
Post-intervention189.5 ± 48.9174.7 ± 40.214.8 (−8.0 to 37.7)0.3300.200
MD (95% CI)−42.8 (−51.4 to −34.2)−45.1 (−63.31 to −26.9)
Effect size−0.932−0.862
p-value0.001 *0.001 *
Hip strengthPre-intervention0.5 ± 0.10.5 ± 0.10 (−0.1 to 0)00.471
Post-intervention0.7 ± 0.10.7 ± 0.10 (−0.1 to 0)00.700
MD (95% CI)−0.1 (−0.1 to 0)−0.1 (−0.1 to 0)
Effect size−1.999−1.999
p-value0.001 *0.001 *
Hamstring ATPre-intervention93.3 ± 21.388.3 ± 18.25.0 (−5.2 to 15.1)0.2520.335
Post-intervention72.6 ± 20.166.4 ± 19.96.2 (−4.0 to 16.4)0.3090.231
MD (95% CI)20.6 (10.4 to 30.9)21.9 (15.5 to 28.3)
Effect size0.9991.148
p-value0.001 *0.001 *
Quadriceps ATPre-intervention99.3 ± 25.792.9 ± 24.96.4 (−6.5 to 19.4)0.2520.325
Post-intervention64.0 ± 19.056.4 ± 18.57.6 (−2.0 to 17.1)0.4050.122
MD (95% CI)35.3 (26.4 to 44.1)36.4 (28.0 to 44.8)
Effect size1.5611.664
p-value0.001 *0.001 *
Supervised-rehab, supervised rehabilitation; Tele-rehab, telerehabilitation; AT, acceleration time; MD, mean difference; CI, confidence interval. Note: Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. The measurement unit of knee muscle strength was Nm kg−1 × 100. The measurement unit of hip muscle strength was kg-f. The measurement unit of acceleration time was milliseconds. All data were recorded and described by one physical therapist. * Statistically significant.
Table
Table 3. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes in the supervised-rehab and tele-rehab groups.
Table 3. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes in the supervised-rehab and tele-rehab groups.
Supervised-Rehab GroupTele-Rehab
Group		MD
(95% CI)		Effect Sizep-Value
VAS scorePre-intervention4.7 ± 0.74.8 ± 0.7−0.1 (−3.8 to 3.4)−0.1420.903
Post-intervention2.5 ± 0.62.4 ± 0.91.1 (−2.9 to 5.4)0.1300.547
MD (95% CI)21.5 (18.7 to 24.4)23.0 (19.5 to 26.5)
Effect size3.3742.976
p-value0.001 *0.001 *
AKPS scorePre-intervention65.7 ± 3.963.9 ± 7.91.8 (−1.4 to 5.0)0.2880.262
Post-intervention77.5 ± 4.378.9 ± 6.4−1.4 (−4.3 to 1.3)−0.2560.304
MD (95% CI)−11.7 (−13.8 to −9.6)−15.0 (−18.2 to −11.8)
Effect size2.874−2.086
p-value0.001 *0.001 *
TSK-11 scorePre-intervention32.4 ± 7.233.3 ± 3.7−0.9 (−3.9 to 1.9)−0.1570.503
Post-intervention21.1 ± 2.720.7 ± 3.60.4 (−1.2 to 2.0)0.1250.638
MD (95% CI)11.3 (8.7 to 13.8)12.6 (11.0 to 14.2)
Effect size2.0783.451
p-value0.001 *0.001 *
Supervised-rehab, supervised rehabilitation; Tele-rehab, telerehabilitation; VAS, visual analog scale; AKPS, anterior knee pain scale; TSK-11, tampa scale for kinesiophobia; MD, mean difference; CI, confidence interval. Note: Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. All data were recorded and described by one physical therapist. * Statistically significant.
Table
Table 4. Correlations between adherence rate and rate of change in muscle strength, muscle activation time, and patient-reported outcomes.
Table 4. Correlations between adherence rate and rate of change in muscle strength, muscle activation time, and patient-reported outcomes.
ParametersSupervised-Rehab GroupTele-Rehab Group
Adherence RateAdherence Rate
Hamstring strengthPCC (r)−0.1110.174
p-value0.5590.350
Quadriceps strengthPCC (r)0.5160.637
p-value0.002 *0.001 *
Hip strengthPCC (r)0.494−0.086
p-value0.006 *0.644
Hamstring ATPCC (r)−0.283−0.266
p-value0.129 0.148
Quadriceps ATPCC (r)0.4320.371
p-value0.021 *0.040 *
VAS scorePCC (r)0.0910.368
p-value0.6340.042 *
AKPS scorePCC (r)0.6500.456
p-value0.001 *0.010 *
TSK-11 scorePCC (r)0.4440.509
p-value0.014 *0.003 *
Supervised-rehab, supervised rehabilitation; Tele-rehab, telerehabilitation; AT, acceleration time; VAS, visual analog scale; AKPS, anterior knee pain scale; TSK-11, tampa scale for kinesiophobia; PCC, Pearson’s correlation coefficient. * Statistically significant.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, J.H.; Shin, K.H.; Lee, G.B.; Son, S.; Jang, K.-M. Comparison of Functional Outcomes between Supervised Rehabilitation and Telerehabilitation in Female Patients with Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2233. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032233

AMA Style

Lee JH, Shin KH, Lee GB, Son S, Jang K-M. Comparison of Functional Outcomes between Supervised Rehabilitation and Telerehabilitation in Female Patients with Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(3):2233. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032233

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Jin Hyuck, Ki Hun Shin, Gyu Bin Lee, Seiwook Son, and Ki-Mo Jang. 2023. "Comparison of Functional Outcomes between Supervised Rehabilitation and Telerehabilitation in Female Patients with Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome during the COVID-19 Pandemic" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 3: 2233. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032233

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop