Effects of a prophylactic knee bracing on patellofemoral loading during cycling
The aim of the current investigation was to utilize a musculoskeletal simulation approach to examine the effects of prophylactic knee bracing on patellofemoral joint loading during the pedal cycle.
Twenty-four (12 male and 12 female) healthy recreational cyclists rode a stationary cycle ergometer at fixed cadences of 70, 80 and 90 RPM in two different conditions (brace and no-brace). Patellofemoral loading was explored using a musculoskeletal simulation approach and participants were also asked to subjectively rate their perceived stability and comfort whilst wearing the brace.
The results showed that the integral of the patellofemoral joint stress was significantly lower in the brace condition (male: 70 RPM = 8.89, 80 RPM = 9.76, and 90 RPM = 12.30 KPa/kg s and female: 70 RPM = 11.59, 80 RPM = 13.07 and 90 RPM = 14.14 KPa/kg s) compared to no-brace (male: 70 RPM = 10.23, 80 RPM = 10.96 and 90 RPM = 13.20 and female: 70 RPM = 12.43, 80 RPM = 14.04 and 90 RPM = 15.45 KPa/kg s). In addition, it was also revealed that participants rated that the knee brace significantly improved perceived knee joint stability.
The findings from the current investigation, therefore, indicate that prophylactic knee bracing may have the potential to attenuate the risk from the biomechanical parameters linked to the aetiology of patellofemoral pain in cyclists. Future, longitudinal analyses are required to confirm the efficacy of prophylactic knee braces for the attenuation of patellofemoral pain symptoms in cyclists.
KeywordsCycling Patellofemoral pain Knee brace Biomechanics Musculoskeletal modeling
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 16.Theobald G, Parry S, Richards J, Thewlis D, Tootill I, Selfe J (2012) Biomechanical effects of different treatment modalities used in knee pain during cycling. Physiother Pract Res 33:16–21Google Scholar
- 34.Bailey M, Messenger N (1995) Coronal plane kinematics of cycling and their relationship to injury. J Sport Sci 14:3–4Google Scholar