The overall objective of this project is to compare the three home-managed treatment regimens for PFPS: neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and NMES combined with TENS to a standard home exercise program (HEP). Each of the three treatment arms will be supplemented by HEP and compared to a group receiving standard HEP alone. The central hypothesis is that the combination of NMES with TENS will show significantly greater improvements in muscle strength, mobility, pain, daily activity and quality of life (QOL) than HEP alone. The investigators are examining: 1) whether the three treatment regimens are significantly more efficacious than standard HEP alone in improving lower extremity muscle strength, physical activity, mobility, pain, and quality of life; 2) lower extremity muscle strength, physical activity, mobility, pain, and quality of life differ significantly across the 4 time periods; 3) is there an interaction between treatment and time in relation to lower extremity muscle strength, physical activity, mobility, pain, and quality of life.
Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is the most common diagnosis among active duty military presenting with knee pain in the military ambulatory care setting. The incidence of PFPS has shown a striking increase of \>11.3% over the last 4 years, affecting work performance, limiting activity, and impacting military deployment health. The investigators have shown that home-based neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is safe, portable, easy-to-use and improves quadriceps muscle strength with some pain relief. NMES and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) devices are widely used by warfighters in the theatre of operation for knee problems. The overall objective of this project is to compare three home-managed treatment regimens for PFPS: NMES, TENS, and NMES combined with TENS to a standard home exercise program (HEP). The central hypothesis is that the combination of NMES with TENS will show significantly greater improvements in muscle strength, mobility, pain, daily activity and quality of life (QOL) than HEP alone. The rationale for this study is that increasing muscle strength and decreasing pain will significantly improve mobility, physical activity and QOL. Such outcomes will ultimately result in improved deployability, retention of military personnel and decreased economic costs in this population. The specific aims are to determine whether the three treatment regimens are significantly more efficacious than standard HEP for improving muscle strength, physical activity, mobility, QOL and symptoms of PFPS including pain. After consent and baseline testing, the investigators will randomly assign active duty male and female subjects, ages 18 to \<45, (n=136) with PFPS to one of the four groups. Each of the three treatment arms will be supplemented by HEP and compared to a group receiving standard HEP alone. All groups will receive 9 weeks of home therapy. Using GEE methods, the investigators will build longitudinal regression models so that differences in time trends for the outcome variables among controls and those in the treatment groups can be statistically assessed. Positive results could translate into accelerated rehabilitation, decreased symptoms and lower medical costs with better patient outcomes.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
132
All participants will receive a standard home-based exercise rehabilitation protocol for PFPS. HEP teaches muscle strengthening exercises and self-management strategies to prevent recurrence. This program includes sessions with the study coordinator. A handout and given a demonstration of the daily exercises to be performed at home and weekly communication from the study coordinator regarding compliance with the exercises.
To ensure consistent interventions across participants, a specified percentage of baseline maximal voluntary contraction (% MVC) will be used to determine the intensity of the training contraction. The electrical amplitude to obtain the desired intensity will be determined for each participant. Participants will train at 20-30% of MVC during weeks 1-3, 30-40% of MVC during weeks 3-6, and 40-50% of MVC during weeks 6-9. Incremental increases will be made at the 3 and 6 week clinic visits. Individualized instructions for adjusting the amplitude dial settings, with a return demonstration, will be used to maintain the appropriate percentage of MVC. During the home training sessions, participants will adjust the amplitude required to achieve the desired goal, as tolerated.
The TENS protocol consists of 20-minutes of TENS stimulation while concurrently performing the HEP. The TENS with HEP and HEP alone will be alternated for 9 weeks. The Active device delivers a pre-set program of pulsed electrostimulation using a patented asymmetrical simple modulated pulse (SMP) waveform. SMP delivers a group of pulses as a repeating 12-second cycle.
Blanchfield Army Community Hospital
Fort Campbell North, Kentucky, United States
Lower Extremity Muscle Strength- Extension
The NMMT is a handheld device which measures knee extensor (KE) and flexor (KF) muscle strength. The measurement of KE strength on the PFPS leg is reported. For each test, participants performed three maximal efforts holding each contraction for 4 seconds, separated by 30-second rest; the highest value of the three trials will be accepted in kilograms.
Time frame: 0, 3, 6, and 9 weeks
Lower Extremity Muscle Strength- Flexion
The NMMT is a handheld device which measures knee extensor (KE) and flexor (KF) muscle strength. The measurement of KE strength on the PFPS leg is reported. For each test, participants performed three maximal efforts holding each contraction for 4 seconds, separated by 30-second rest; the highest value of the three trials will be accepted in kilograms.
Time frame: 0, 3, 6, and 9 weeks
Lower Extremity Strength- 30-Second Chair Stand Test
Mobility was measured by the number of complete standing and sitting cycles in 30-seconds
Time frame: 0, 3, 6, and 9 weeks
Lower Extremity Strength- Timed Stair Climb Test
Strength, balance, and power were measured by the number seconds it took to ascend and descend 4 steps (6 in rise, 11.5 in run).
Time frame: 0, 3, 6, and 9 weeks
Lower Extremity Mobility- Forward Step-down Test
Mobility was measured by the number of step down repetitions completed in 30 seconds.
Time frame: 0, 3, 6, and 9 weeks
Lower Extremity Mobility- 6-Minute Walk Test
Mobility was measured by the distance walked at a fast pace over 6-minutes.
Time frame: 0, 3, 6, and 9 weeks
Current Knee Pain
Current Knee Pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale, an 11-point numerical rating scale. Participants rated current knee pain intensity on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). A mean pain score was calculated.
Time frame: 0, 3, 6, and 9 weeks
Knee Pain Following Performance Testing- 30-Second Chair Stand Test
Knee pain intensity after the 30-Second Chair Stand Test was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale, an 11-point numerical rating scale. Participants rated current knee pain intensity on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). A mean pain score was calculated.
Time frame: 0, 3, 6, and 9 weeks
Knee Pain Following Performance Testing- Stair Climb Test
Knee pain intensity after the Stair Climb Test was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale, an 11-point numerical rating scale. Participants rated current knee pain intensity on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). A mean pain score was calculated.
Time frame: 0, 3, 6, and 9 weeks
Knee Pain Following Performance Testing- Forward Step Down Test
Knee pain intensity after the Forward Step Down Test was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale, an 11-point numerical rating scale. Participants rated current knee pain intensity on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). A mean pain score was calculated.
Time frame: 0, 3, 6, and 9 weeks
Knee Pain Following Performance Testing- 6-Minute Walk Test
Knee pain intensity after the 6-Minute Walk Test was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale, an 11-point numerical rating scale. Participants rated current knee pain intensity on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). A mean pain score was calculated.
Time frame: 0, 3, 6, and 9 weeks
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.