PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. Author manuscript; available in PMC Oct 26, 2007.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2042530
NIHMSID: NIHMS31607
Patella malalignment, pain and patellofemoral progression: The Health ABC Study
DJ Hunter,1 YQ Zhang,1 JB Niu,1 DT Felson,1 K Kwoh,2 A Newman,2 S Kritchevsky,3 T Harris,4 L Carbone,5 and M Nevitt6
1 Boston University Clinical Epidemiology Research and Training Unit, Arthritis Center, and the Department of Medicine at Boston Medical Center, Boston, U.S.A.
2 University of Pittsburgh
3 Wake Forest University
4 NIA
5 University of Tennessee, Memphis
6 UCSF
Corresponding Author: Dr. Hunter at A203, Boston University School of Medicine, 715 Albany St., Boston, MA 02118.
Objective
Patellofemoral (PF) joint OA is strongly correlated with lower extremity disability and knee pain. Risk factors for pain and structural progression in patellofemoral OA are poorly understood. Our objective was to determine the association between patella malalignment and its relation to pain severity, and PF OA disease progression.
Methods
We conducted an analysis of data from the Health ABC knee OA study. Health ABC is a community based, multi-center cohort study of 3,075 Caucasian and Black men and women aged 70–79 at enrollment. Weight bearing skyline knee x-rays were obtained in a subset (595) of subjects, with and without knee pain, at year 2 and year 5 (mean follow-up 36 months). Films were read paired, and patellofemoral osteophytes (OST) and narrowing (JSN) were scored on a 0–3 scale using the OARSI atlas. We defined progression of PF OA as any increase in JSN score. 3 measures of patella malalignment were made: sulcus angle; patella tilt angle; and patella subluxation medially or laterally (bisect offset). Knee symptoms were assessed using a knee specific WOMAC knee pain subscale. We assessed the relationship between baseline patella malalignment and pain severity (linear regression for WOMAC) and compartment specific PF OA progression (logistic regression for dichotomous outcomes). We classified continuous measures of patella alignment into quartile groups. We performed multivariable adjusted logistic regression models, including age, gender and BMI to assess the relation of baseline patella alignment to the occurrence of PF JSN progression using generalized estimating equations.
Results
The subjects had a mean age 73.6 (SD 2.9), BMI 28.8 (SD 4.9), 40.3% male, and 46% were Black. Medial displacement of the patella predisposed to medial JSN progression; odds for each quartile 1, 1.2, 1.2, 2.2 (p for trend=0.03), whilst protecting from lateral JSN progression; odds for each quartile 1, 0.7, 0.6, 0.4 (p for trend=0.0004). Increasing patella tilt protected from medial JSN progression; odds for each quartile 1, 0.8, 0.5, 0.2 (p<0.0001) and trended to increasing pain severity (p=0.09).
Conclusion
Patella malalignment is associated with PF disease progression. Medial displacement and tilt of the patella predisposes to medial JSN progression, whilst lateral displacement is predictive of lateral JSN progression. The influence of patella malalignment has important implications since it is potentially modifiable through footwear, taping and/ or knee bracing.
Our current understanding of the sources of pain and hence disability in knee osteoarthritis (OA) is limited (1). Previous research has concentrated primarily on the tibiofemoral (TF) joint and has shown a weak correlation between radiographic structural change and both pain and disability (2). Relatively little attention has been paid to the patellofemoral (PF) joint, despite suggestions that disease there may be strongly correlated with lower extremity disability (3), and that assessment of the PF joint may provide a clearer explanation for knee pain in OA (4). Whilst good epidemiological information is available for TF OA (57), accurate data for risk factors for patellofemoral disease are unknown. Epidemiology studies suggest that the risk factors associated with disease are different for PF OA and TF OA (8;9), and the contribution of risk factors unique to PF OA and its progression are relatively unknown (10).
The studies that have been conducted have considered risk factors for TF OA with little regard to the unique biomechanics of the PF joint (9; 11; 12). OA progression in the PF compartment may be influenced by a profile of factors different from those in either medial or lateral TF disease. Both biomechanical and clinical studies provide support for this theory. First, the designs of the PF and TF compartments each reflect unique functions and mechanics (13). Second, subjects with knee OA may have disease isolated to the PF compartment, isolated to one TF compartment, or concomitant disease in the PF compartment and one TF compartment (8). In individuals with PF OA and TF OA in the same knee, no correlation has been found between OA severity in the PF and TF compartments (14).
Patellar malalignment may cause an aberrant dispersion of patellofemoral joint reaction force (PFJR) forces and through this mechanism potentially predispose to pain and or structural progression (1517). Although the kinematics of the knee involve motion patterns comprised of axial internal and external rotation and slight varus-valgus movement during flexion and extension, the predominant motion at the knee is flexion-extension. Furthermore, this flexion-extension or hinge type of motion occurs about centers of rotation located above the joint line on the femoral side, proximate to the PF joint. Patellar malalignment is a translational or rotational deviation of the patella relative to any axis that may lead to an aberrant dispersion of the forces transmitted through the PF joint (17). The main force of concern is lateral in the coronal and especially axial planes (18). Uncontrolled data suggests that patellae that are located centrally in the trochlear groove, and not malaligned may be less likely to develop osteoarthritis (14;19;20).
Our objective was to investigate the association between patella malalignment and its relation to pain severity and PF OA disease progression.
Study Sample
Health ABC is a community based, multi-center, cohort study of 3,075 non-institutionalized White and Black men and women aged 70–79 (mean age 73) at enrollment. Subjects were recruited primarily from a random sample of Medicare-eligible adults from a list provided by the Health Care Financing Administration; 33% of men and 46% of women are Black. The primary objective of the study is to examine the incidence of physical disability in relation to body composition and weight-related health conditions in healthy older persons. At baseline (1997–98), all participants reported themselves free of disability in activities of daily living and free of functional limitations (defined as difficulty walking a quarter of a mile or up 10 steps). The Study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at The University of Tennessee and The University of Pittsburgh; the 2 clinical sites for the Study.
Assessment and definition of knee symptoms
Study interviewers assessed knee symptoms at each visit by asking participants if they had “pain, aching or stiffness on most days for at least one month” at some time during the past year, and interviewers also administered a modified Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale (21). The modified WOMAC pain subscale uses a 5-point Likert scale and asks subjects to rate any knee pain during each of six activities (total score range 0–24): walking on a flat surface, going up or down stairs, at night while in bed, standing upright, getting in or out of a chair, and getting in or out of a car. A knee was defined as having symptoms if the participant reported pain, aching, or stiffness in that knee on most days for at least 1 month in the past 12 months or if they reported moderate or worse knee pain during the last 30 days in association with >=1 activity listed in the WOMAC pain scale.
At the year 2 clinic visit, a subset of participants underwent imaging of the knee to assess OA (22). At this visit, all participants with frequent knee (pain on most days of a month in the past year) and those with moderate or worse knee pain during any activity on the WOMAC knee pain scale were recruited to have a bilateral knee radiograph. Of subjects with at least one symptomatic knee, 861 (94%) completed the x-ray exam. In addition, in Health ABC a random sample of 276 participants without knee symptoms had a knee x-ray exam.
Radiographic Assessment
Bilateral views of the tibiofemoral compartment of the knee joint were obtained using the Fixed-Flexion technique (23), and axial (skyline) views were obtained of the patellofemoral joint. For the tibiofemoral compartment, both knees were assessed radiographically with a posteroanterior projection using a positioning frame (SynaFlexer; Synarc, San Francisco, CA) in order to fix knee flexion (between 20° and 30°) and external rotation of the feet at 10° for each subject. For the patellofemoral view, each knee was imaged separately with the participant in a standing position and the limb flexed at 30–40° during weight-bearing (24).
Knee x-rays were obtained in a subset (595) of subjects, with knee pain (in at least one knee), at 2 time points; year 2 and year 5 (mean follow-up 36 months). Films were read paired and joint space narrowing (JSN) was scored on a 0–3 scale using the OARSI atlas (25). We defined progression of PF OA as any increase in JSN score in either the medial or lateral PF joint. The films were read by one trained observer and reliability was established at the beginning and drift was assessed through the course of reading. The intra-observer reproducibility for reading JSN ranged from 0.82–0.90 (kappa).
Patellofemoral alignment
The assessment of patellofemoral motion was made from a weight bearing skyline film. There are a number of different methods to characterize abnormal motion of the patella relative to the femur and attempts to standardize these have been described previously (26). The measures chosen include one of femoral dysplasia, one of tilt, and one of lateral displacement. The measures are widely recognized and have been used in previous studies (26; 27).
3 measures of patella alignment were made on the skyline radiograph from the Year 2 visit: and patella subluxation medially or laterally (bisect offset which measures the patellar width medial and lateral to the deepest portion of the trochlear groove-Figure 1) (28), dysplasia of the femoral trochlea (the sulcus angle-Figure 2) (29); and patellar tilt (the patella tilt angle-Figure 3) (30). These measures have been developed and used using more dynamic techniques such as cine MRI or CT. These other investigative techniques may provide more information as they are assessed at multiple flexion angles. However these techniques are not available in all centers and their processing is much more labor intensive meaning that applying them to large datasets such as the one here is not practical.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Method used to measure medial and lateral displacement using the bisect offset measurement (28). This was determined by drawing a line connecting the posterior femoral condyles (AB) and then projecting a perpendicular line anteriorly through the deepest (more ...)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Method used to measure the sulcus angle (30). This angle was defined by lines joining the highest points of the medial and lateral condyles and the lowest point of the intercondylar sulcus (AB and CB) (left). In order to obtain data when the trochlear (more ...)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Method used to assess patellar tilt (29). Patellar tilt was defined as the angle formed by lines joining the maximum width of the patella (AB) and the posterior femoral condyles (BC). All tilt measurements will be reported in degrees. Normal tilt ranges (more ...)
The reading of alignment on the baseline film was done at the same reading session and prior to the evaluation of the individual radiographic features on the baseline and follow-up film. For all films there was a single reader who thus was unblinded to sequence in reading the individual radiographic features. Intra-observer ICCs for reading alignment ranged from 0.81–0.95. Interobserver ICCs were assessed on 15 paired films and ranged from 0.68–0.86.
Statistical Analysis
We assessed the relation between baseline patella malalignment to the pain severity (WOMAC) and compartment specific PF OA progression. Initially analyses were conducted in specific genders and then when results were found to be similar between genders, the data were combined and analyses adjusted for gender. For the cross sectional relationship at baseline between patella malalignment (the predictor) and pain severity, we conducted a linear regression with WOMAC pain score as the dependent variable. We obtained a standardized beta coefficient using generalized estimating equations (GEE- to adjust for correlation between knees in knee specific analysis) from the linear regression model. The power to detect the relation of baseline WOMAC pain to tilt observed in the paper was 87% given the sample size we had.
For the analysis of PF OA radiographic progression we classified the continuous measures of patella alignment into quartiles. The number of cases of PF JSN progression despite the large sample size used in this study was small. In order to provide more equal distribution of knees between the quartiles we have used population-based quartiles of alignment using the first alignment measure (bisect offset) to provide this quartile assignment. We used this approach since we were interested in more than one dichotomous outcome i.e. medial and lateral PF JSN progression. We performed multivariable adjusted logistic regression , adjusting for age, gender, race and BMI to assess the relation of baseline patella alignment to PF OA progression using GEE, to generate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We assessed the significance of trend across the quartiles by creating a four level variable with the median value for the quartiles of alignment as the value for each level thus generating a linear test for trend, and for sulcus angle where the relationship did appear J shaped we added a quadratic term of alignment measurement.
Of the 1137 subjects who had an x-ray at the baseline examination 595 had a further examination at the Year 5 examination. In comparing these with the 542 participants who did not have the follow-up OA examination the subjects were comparable in age, gender and race. These samples did differ in relation to the proportion with PF OA at baseline 49% vs. 33% and mean WOMAC pain at baseline 7.3 vs. 4.2 in those with follow-up versus those without respectively.
At the baseline examination, the 595 subjects had a mean age 73.6 (SD 2.9), BMI 28.8 (SD 4.9), 40.3% male, and 46% were Black. 49% of persons had PF ROA, and 47% of persons had TF ROA. Amongst those with TF ROA 16% were K & L=2, 17% were K & L=3, and 14% were K & L=4 (See Table 1). Among 362 knees with PF ROA at baseline, the distribution of PF JSN (0, 1, 2, and 3) was 68.8%, 19.6%, 9.7%, and 1.9% in the medial compartment, and 51.5%, 19.1%, 19.4%, and 10.0% in the lateral compartment. The proportion of subjects with PF JSN progression was 5.7% lateral and 7.1% medial.
Table 1
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Study Population at Baseline
The results of the association between WOMAC pain and the patella alignment measures are presented in Table 2. With increasing tilt angle there is a trend to a decrease in WOMAC pain. The other measures of PF alignment showed no relation to pain severity.
Table 2
Table 2
Relationship between standardized patella subluxation measures and WOMAC pain
The correlation between the three exposures (offset, sulcus angle and tilt) used in this study was weak at best. The correlation between bisect offset and sulcus angle was −0.06 (p=0.04), between bisect offset and tilt was −0.21 (p=0.0001) and sulcus angle and tilt was 0.08 (p=0.004).
The most profound effects of patella malalignment on structural progression were seen with bisect offset (patella subluxation), and results for the association with JSN progression are presented in Table 3. Bisect offset measures the medial and lateral shift of patella. As the patella became more laterally located, i.e., as the percentage of lateral offset increased, the risk lateral joint space narrowing progression increased. The reference group we have chosen is the most laterally displaced quartile (a physiologic offset is approximately 0.40) (27; 28; 31). With increasing medial displacement there is increased odds of medial PF JSN progression (p for trend=0.03). Similarly with increasing lateral displacement there is increased odds of lateral JSN progression (p for trend=0.02).
Table 3
Table 3
Relationship between bisect offset and PF JSN progression
The results of sulcus angle association with JSN progression are presented in the Table 4. The second and third quartiles demonstrate a trend to increased odds of medial JSN progression with a non-significant test for a J-shaped trend (p for J-shaped trend=0.07). The extreme quartiles (first and fourth) demonstrate a significant trend to lateral JSN progression (p for trend=0.04).
Table 4
Table 4
Relationship between sulcus angle and PF JSN progression
The results of patella tilt association with JSN progression are presented in Table 5. A negative patella tilt angle indicates tilt toward the medial side and a positive angle tilt to the lateral side. With increasing tilt there is a protective effect on medial JSN progression (p for trend<0.0001) with no trend to lateral JSN progression.
Table 5
Table 5
Relationship between tilt angle and PF JSN progression
Patella subluxation is associated with PF OA progression. Medial displacement of the patella predisposes to medial JSN progression, whilst increasing lateral displacement predisposes to lateral JSN progression. Patella tilt is also associated with disease progression and a trend to increasing pain severity.
The most common symptoms of knee OA occur with activities that preferentially engage the PF joint, and generate the highest forces and torques, such as descending stairs, and arising from a chair (32; 33). These activities load all compartments of the knee; however, the forces are greatest in the patellofemoral joint. Patellar tilt appears to predispose to pain presumably through an aberrant dispersion of the forces through the PF joint. Specifically Grelsamer, et al (16) hypothesized that if the patella is tilted painful stresses can develop (16; 17; 34).
Each measure provides different information about the exposure of patellofemoral malalignment. The measurement of bisect offset provided strong effects as an exposure for both medial and lateral PF JSN progression. In contrast measurement of tilt and sulcus angle appeared to influence the risk of medial progression more than lateral progression. One potential explanation for this is that medial PF JSN progression was more common than lateral providing greater opportunity to assess the effect of these exposures on this outcome.
The etiopathogenesis of osteoarthritis is widely believed to be the result of local mechanical factors acting within the context of systemic susceptibility. OA is characterized by changes in structure and function of the joint with the central component being degradation and subsequent loss of articular cartilage with related changes in the underlying bone (35). Patellae that are located centrally in the trochlear groove and not malaligned are thought to be less likely to develop osteoarthritis (14; 19; 20). When the cartilage in a compartment is under stress due to the aberrant biomechanics of the patella, there is an increased risk of JSN, while when it is unloaded JSN is less likely to occur.
The potential relation of alterations in patellar alignment predisposing to symptoms has been explored in patellofemoral pain syndrome; a condition that typically manifests in a much younger spectrum of the population than PF OA. Previous studies in persons with PF pain syndrome have identified abnormalities in both kinematics and joint stress (3638). More recently there have been suggestions that one of the long term sequelae of PF pain syndrome may be PF OA warranting joint replacement (39).
To appreciate the forces that potentially can lead to increased patellofemoral loading it is helpful to consider the unique biomechanics of this joint; thus providing insights to risk factors for PF OA (15). The patella increases the mechanical advantage of extensor muscles by transmitting forces across the knee at greater distance (moment) from the axis of rotation. In so doing, it increases the functional lever arm of quadriceps as well as changing the direction of pull of the quadriceps mechanism. It is the principal site of insertion of quadriceps, and it transmits the tensile forces generated by the quadriceps to the patellar ligament. Stability of the patellofemoral joint is dependent on the passive, dynamic and static restraints around the knee. The primary dynamic restraint is the quadriceps muscles. The primary static constraint is the articular anatomy of the femoral condyles in particular the trochlear depth/ sulcus angle and the shape of the retropatellar surface (40).
The dynamic and static stabilizing forces of the patella cause the patella to compress (joint reaction force) against the femur. This is termed the patellofemoral joint reaction force (PFJR) and this force increases with increasing knee flexion. The joint reaction force during walking (10–15 degrees of flexion) is approximately 50% of bodyweight. Walking up stairs (60 degrees) the JRF is 3.3*bodyweight. During squats (130 degrees), the JRF is 7.8*bodyweight (17). Previous studies have suggested that patellofemoral joint kinematics and mechanics may directly contribute to PF OA (19; 4143).
The three measures patella alignment assessed on the skyline radiographs are those most frequently cited in the literature (16; 27; 30). In the mid 1990’s, Harrison and colleagues examined skyline view knee x-rays of 109 knees in 65 patients with symptomatic patellofemoral osteoarthritis. They found that the amount (defined as summary score of radiographic changes, i.e., joint space loss, osteophyte formation, and bone cystic changes, in the patellofemoral joint) and site of patellofemoral arthrosis were correlated with patella position and limb alignment. Patellae that were located centrally in the trochlear grove had the lowest radiographic score for arthritis. Subluxation of the patella either medially or laterally was associated with an increased risk for radiographic scores (19). The findings of this study suggest that patella malalignment appeared to be associated with the severity of overall radiographic changes in patellofemoral osteoarthritis patients.
Our results add to this by demonstrating that patella malalignment predisposes to progression. The few studies that have explored PF OA show that the lateral PF compartment is more frequently affected than the medial (11; 14; 19). Previous studies have shown that the patellofemoral joint reaction force (PFJR) may directly contribute to patellofemoral osteoarthritis (41; 42). One parameter that may influence the PFJR is patella malalignment. The lateral compartment likely has higher contact pressures as a result of increased patella tilt and lateral subluxation (14; 19). This may be why an application of a medial glide to the patella (forcing the patella medially and away from an overloaded lateral compartment) in previous studies of taping leads to a positive effect on knee symptoms (44; 45). The potential for therapies that realign the patella to have a structure modifying effect has not been explored.
Our findings have a number of potential limitations that warrant consideration. One concern is the potential for collinearity in our analyses. For example lateral patellofemoral JSN itself allows increased lateral subluxation through alteration in the structure of the PF joint. In the absence of observational studies of longer duration with more time-points the precise sequence of events awaits further exploration. Further the number of cases particularly in the extreme quartiles was often small hence the often wide confidence intervals. We would commend replicating this analysis in a larger dataset.
The self reported assessment of pain in the knee is for the knee as a whole. Knee symptoms can emanate from a number of different tissues including the subchondral bone, synovium, retinaculum, skin, muscle and nerves. In addition it can come from the patellofemoral joint or the tibiofemoral joint. Assessment of the alignment of the patellofemoral joint provides only one small keyhole view into a complex array of possible sources of knee pain. Further this study suggests that if a relationship exists between patella alignment and pain it is weak.
We studied elderly subjects who were well-functioning one year prior to the baseline OA assessments. Our findings may not apply to other groups. The population was older at the age of inception than many other OA cohorts. A distinct advantage of this sample is the inclusion of a large sample of blacks however this may detract from the ability to compare the findings directly with other predominantly Caucasian cohorts such as Framingham. A large proportion of those who attended the baseline knee x-ray exam did not attend for follow-up x-ray exam. Those who did attend for follow up tended to have more OA and more symptoms thus representing a more severe OA group than the whole sample. This may have afforded us greater power to detect the associations we did find.
The selection methods ensured that at the baseline examination of the parent study, eligible participants were free of disability in activities of daily living and free of functional limitations (defined as difficulty walking a quarter of a mile or up 10 steps). This may have biased the sample selection at the year 1 follow-up exam for the present study such that those with the most severe knee OA may have been excluded. However this population has been used in other analyses which suggests that the pattern of OA is similar to that in other cohorts (22; 46). Similarly the control sample (those free of knee symptoms at baseline) were limited in number in comparison with the true prevalence of those without knee symptoms in the community. The analyses presented in this manuscript pertain to the relation between patella alignment and PF OA. If there were a bias it would be towards not finding a relationship between patella alignment and PF OA as more disabled (and potentially with that those with the most severe OA/ most progression) would have been excluded. In addition, the contrast between a small asymptomatic sample and those with symptoms may have reduced our opportunity to find an association between patella alignment and pain.
The WOMAC scale was not normally distributed (25% subjects had WOMAC pain score as zero) and despite trying standard methods to normalize this distribution we could not make this more normally distributed. This said linear regression is robust to violation of assumptions of normality.
The x-rays taken in our study were not acquired dynamically and were taken at one knee flexion angle. A laterally displaced patella (higher BO) and/or lateral border of patella tilted down on these images likely indicates the tightness of the structures that hold patella in a lateral position (lateral retinaculum, vastus lateralis, ITB). In this situation, during dynamic movement of the knee greater load and therefore greater shear force will be placed on the lateral PF compartment, in comparison to the situation where patella is located directly against trochlear sulcus and the load forces are divided equally between lateral and medial PF compartments. A static view of the knee taken at one flexion angle is likely to underestimate the true exposure to patella malalignment. Further evaluation using dynamic imaging techniques such as MRI would allow further evaluation of this exposure. For all films there was a single reader who was unblinded to sequence in reading alignment and the individual radiographic features. This may have biased the reader in detecting and reading progression.
In sum we have found that patella subluxation, sulcus angle and patella tilt are associated with PF OA progression. These findings warrant replication in other datasets. Assuming they are replicated, and these findings reinforce the importance of PF alignment both for symptoms and PF OA progression, this has important implications. PF alignment is potentially modifiable through footwear advice (47), taping and/ or knee bracing (45; 48).
Acknowledgments
This work by Dr Hunter was supported by an RO3 from NIAMS (AR51102-01) and by AR47785. Health ABC is supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, and NIA (Contracts N01-AG-6-2101, N01-AG-6-2103 and N01-AG-6-2106).
We would like to thank the participants and staff of the Health ABC Study.
Footnotes
Conflict of interest statement
Nothing to declare. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Role of funding source
The study sponsor was not involved in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or the decision to submit the paper for publication.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
1. Creamer P. Osteoarthritis pain and its treatment. Current Opinion in Rheumatology. 2000;12(5):450–455. [Review] [56 refs] [PubMed]
2. Creamer P, Lethbridge-Cejku M, Hochberg MC. Factors associated with functional impairment in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000;39(5):490–496. [PubMed]
3. McAlindon TE, Snow S, Cooper C, Dieppe PA. Radiographic patterns of osteoarthritis of the knee joint in the community: the importance of the patellofemoral joint. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 1992;51(7):844–849. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. Lanyon P, O'Reilly S, Jones A, Doherty M. Radiographic assessment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in the community: definitions and normal joint space. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 1998;57(10):595–601. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Felson DT, Naimark A, Anderson J, Kazis L, Castelli W, Meenan RF. The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in the elderly. The Framingham Osteoarthritis Study Arthritis & Rheumatism. 1987;30(8):914–918. [PubMed]
6. Felson DT, Zhang Y, Hannan MT, Naimark A, Weissman BN, Aliabadi P, et al. The incidence and natural history of knee osteoarthritis in the elderly. The Framingham Osteoarthritis Study Arthritis & Rheumatism. 1995;38(10):1500–1505. [PubMed]
7. Felson DT. The epidemiology of knee osteoarthritis: results from the Framingham Osteoarthritis Study. Seminars in Arthritis & Rheumatism. 1990;20(3 Suppl 1):42–50. [PubMed]
8. McAlindon T, Zhang Y, Hannan M, Naimark A, Weissman B, Castelli W, et al. Are risk factors for patellofemoral and tibiofemoral knee osteoarthritis different? Journal of Rheumatology. 1996;23(2):332–337. [PubMed]
9. Cooper C, McAlindon T, Snow S, Vines K, Young P, Kirwan J, et al. Mechanical and constitutional risk factors for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: differences between medial tibiofemoral and patellofemoral disease. Journal of Rheumatology. 1994;21(2):307–313. [PubMed]
10. Felson DT, Radin EL. What causes knee osteoarthrosis: are different compartments susceptible to different risk factors? Journal of Rheumatology. 1994;21(2):181–183. [Review] [25 refs] [PubMed]
11. Elahi S, Cahue S, Felson DT, Engelman L, Sharma L. The association between varus-valgus alignment and patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2000;43(8):1874–1880. [PubMed]
12. Cicuttini FM, Spector T, Baker J. Risk factors for osteoarthritis in the tibiofemoral and patellofemoral joints of the knee. Journal of Rheumatology. 1997;24(6):1164–1167. [PubMed]
13. Hirokawa S. Biomechanics of the knee joint: a critical review. Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering. 1993;21(2):79–135. [Review] [119 refs] [PubMed]
14. Iwano T, Kurosawa H, Tokuyama H, Hoshikawa Y. Roentgenographic and clinical findings of patellofemoral osteoarthrosis. With special reference to its relationship to femorotibial osteoarthrosis and etiologic factors. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 1990;(252):190–197. [PubMed]
15. Hungerford DS, Barry M. Biomechanics of the patellofemoral joint. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 1979;(144):9–15. [PubMed]
16. Grelsamer RP. Patellar malalignment. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 2000;82-A(11):1639–1650. [Review] [191 refs] [PubMed]
17. Grelsamer RP, Weinstein CH. Applied biomechanics of the patella. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2001;(389):9–14. [Review] [39 refs] [PubMed]
18. Ficat RP, Hungerford DS. Disorders of the Patello-femoral Joint. Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Co; 1977.
19. Harrison MM, Cooke TD, Fisher SB, Griffin MP. Patterns of knee arthrosis and patellar subluxation. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 1994;(309):56–63. [PubMed]
20. Fujikawa K, Seedhom BB, Wright V. Biomechanics of the patello-femoral joint. Part II: A study of the effect of simulated femorotibial varus deformity on the congruity of the patellofemoral compartment and movement of the patella. Engineering in Medicine. 1983;12(1):13–21. [PubMed]
21. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Journal of Rheumatology. 1988;15(12):1833–1840. [PubMed]
22. Carbone LD, Nevitt MC, Wildy K, Barrow KD, Harris F, Felson D, et al. The relationship of antiresorptive drug use to structural findings and symptoms of knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2004;50(11):3516–3525. [PubMed]
23. Peterfy C, Li J, Zaim S, Duryea J, Lynch J, Miaux Y, et al. Comparison of fixed-flexion positioning with fluoroscopic semi-flexed positioning for quantifying radiographic joint-space width in the knee: test-retest reproducibility. Skeletal Radiology. 2003;32(3):128–132. [PubMed]
24. Buckland W. Radiographic assessment of osteoarthritis: comparison between existing methodologies. Osteoarthritis & Cartilage. 1999;7(4):430–433. [Review] [15 refs] [PubMed]
25. Altman RD, Hochberg M, Murphy WAJ, Wolfe F, Lequesne M. Atlas of individual radiographic features in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis & Cartilage. 1995;3 (Suppl A):3–70. [PubMed]
26. Bull AM, Katchburian MV, Shih YF, Amis AA. Standardisation of the description of patellofemoral motion and comparison between different techniques. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2002;10(3):184–193. [Review] [33 refs] [PubMed]
27. Powers CM. Patellar kinematics, part II: the influence of the depth of the trochlear groove in subjects with and without patellofemoral pain. Physical Therapy. 2000;80(10):965–978. [PubMed]
28. Brossmann J, Muhle C, Schroder C, Melchert UH, Bull CC, Spielmann RP, et al. Patellar tracking patterns during active and passive knee extension: evaluation with motion-triggered cine MR imaging. Radiology. 1993;187(1):205–212. [PubMed]
29. Sasaki T, Yagi T. Subluxation of the patella. Investigation by computerized tomography. International Orthopaedics. 1986;10(2):115–120. [PubMed]
30. Powers CM, Shellock FG, Pfaff M. Quantification of patellar tracking using kinematic MRI. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 1998;8(3):724–732. [PubMed]
31. Stanford W, Phelan J, Kathol MH, Rooholamini SA, el Khoury GY, Palutsis GR, et al. Patellofemoral joint motion: evaluation by ultrafast computed tomography. Skeletal Radiology. 1988;17(7):487–492. [PubMed]
32. Felson DT, Lawrence RC, Dieppe PA, Hirsch R, Helmick CG, Jordan JM, et al. Osteoarthritis: new insights. Part 1: the disease and its risk factors. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2000;133(8):635–646. [Review] [120 refs] [PubMed]
33. Luepongsak N, Amin S, Krebs DE, McGibbon CA, Felson D. The contribution of type of daily activity to loading across the hip and knee joints in the elderly. Osteoarthritis & Cartilage. 2002;10(5):353–359. [PubMed]
34. Grelsamer RP. The sulcus angle and malalignment of the extensor mechanism of the knee. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - British Volume. 2001;83(5):772–773. [PubMed]
35. Martin JA, Buckwalter JA. Roles of articular cartilage aging and chondrocyte senescence in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis. Iowa Orthopaedic Journal. 2001;21:1–7. [Review] [34 refs] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
36. Powers CM. Patellar kinematics, part I: the influence of vastus muscle activity in subjects with and without patellofemoral pain. Physical Therapy. 2000;80(10):956–964. [PubMed]
37. Heino BJ, Powers CM, Terk MR, Ward SR, Lee TQ. Quantification of patellofemoral joint contact area using magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2003;21(9):955–959. [PubMed]
38. Powers CM, Ward SR, Chen YJ, Chan LD, Terk MR. The effect of bracing on patellofemoral joint stress during free and fast walking. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2004;32(1):224–231. [PubMed]
39. Utting MR, Davies G, Newman JH. Is anterior knee pain a predisposing factor to patellofemoral osteoarthritis? Knee. 2005;12(5):362–365. [PubMed]
40. Desio SM, Burks RT, Bachus KN. Soft tissue restraints to lateral patellar translation in the human knee. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 1998;26(1):59–65. [PubMed]
41. Fulkerson JP. The etiology of patellofemoral pain in young, active patients: a prospective study. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 1983;(179):129–133. [PubMed]
42. Herzog W, Diet S, Suter E, Mayzus P, Leonard TR, Muller C, et al. Material and functional properties of articular cartilage and patellofemoral contact mechanics in an experimental model of osteoarthritis. Journal of Biomechanics. 1998;31(12):1137–1145. [PubMed]
43. Pevsner DN, Johnson JR, Blazina ME. The patellofemoral joint and its implications in the rehabilitation of the knee. Physical Therapy. 1979;59(7):869–874. [PubMed]
44. Hinman RS, Crossley KM, McConnell J, Bennell KL. Efficacy of knee tape in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee: blinded randomised controlled trial. [see comment] BMJ. 2003;327(7407):135. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
45. Cushnaghan J, McCarthy C, Dieppe P. Taping the patella medially: a new treatment for osteoarthritis of the knee joint? BMJ. 1994;308(6931):753–755. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
46. Neogi T, Nevitt M, Niu J, LaValley MP, Hunter DJ, Terkeltaub R, et al. Lack of association between chondrocalcinosis and increased risk of cartilage loss in knees with osteoarthritis: results of two prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging studies. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2006;54(6):1822–1828. [PubMed]
47. Kerrigan DC, Lelas JL, Karvosky ME. Women's shoes and knee osteoarthritis. Lancet. 2001;357(9262):1097–1098. [PubMed]
48. McGinty G, Irrgang JJ, Pezzullo D. Biomechanical considerations for rehabilitation of the knee. Clinical Biomechanics. 2000;15(3):160–166. [Review] [39 refs] [PubMed]