Bracing and Taping Techniques and Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome
Authors: Jessee April D. , Gourley Meganne M. , Valovich McLeod Tamara C. 
Published: March 2017

Reference/Citation:
D'hondt NE, Struijs PA, Kerkhoffs GM, et al. Orthotic devices for treating patellofemoral pain syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(2):CD002267.

Clinical Question:
Is there an effective bracing or taping technique for treating patellofemoral pain?

Data Sources:
The authors searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialized register (December 2001), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (2000, issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2000), EMBASE (January 1988 to March 2000), CINAHL (January 1982 to March 2000), and PEDro (up to March 2000) without language limitations. They also contacted relevant orthotic companies and searched the included reference lists of the retrieved articles. The search terms for MEDLINE were anterior knee pain, arthralgia, knee joint, patella, and patellofemoral pain. The search terms for EMBASE were brace, chondropathy, dynamic splint, knee, orthosis, orthotics, patella, patella chondromalacia, patellofemoral joint, randomized control trial, and strap. The search terms for CINAHL were anterior knee pain, brace, orthot, orthos, randomi, strap, tape, patell, and patellofemoral. In PEDro, the subsequent composite of search terms was therapy: manipulation, massage, mobilization, orthoses, splinting, stretching, strength training, taping; subdiscipline: musculoskeletal, orthopaedics, sports; method: clinical trial; problem: muscle weakness, pain, reduced joint compliance; body part: foot or ankle, lower leg or knee.

Study Selection:
All randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing the effectiveness of knee or foot orthotics for treatment of patellofemoral pain syndrome were included. Any trials that described the use of orthotic devices in conjunction with operative treatment were excluded from this review. Using these inclusion criteria, 2 reviewers independently assessed the potentially eligible studies and resolved any disagreements through conversation and negotiation by a third reviewer. Although the authors mentioned that the review's purpose was to assess knee and foot orthoses, none of the included studies assessed foot orthoses. Therefore, all trials that examined foot orthotics were excluded.

Data Extraction:
Using a preset extraction form, 2 reviewers independently entered data into a review manager software program (RevMan 2000; The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). This program was produced by the Cochrane Collaboration to support systematic reviews. Any further information needed regarding methods and data was requested from the authors. Because of heterogeneity of the study population, interventions, and follow-up periods, statistical pooling was not conducted. In place of statistical pooling, the strength of scientific evidence was graded based on a scale of A through D, with A being the strongest evidence-based research and D being the weakest evidence-based research.

Main Results:
The search strategy identified 15 trials, of which only 5 trials met all the inclusion criteria and had enough data to be considered for pooling. The 5 trials involved 362 participants who were assessed for pain, functional improvement, isokinetic muscular strength, motivation, subjective success, worst pain, usual pain, subjective clinical pain, and patellofemoral congruence angle. Of the 5 studies included in the review, only the following statistically significant differences were found. The Protonics orthosis significantly decreased pain and improved function based on the Kujala score versus no treatment. A home exercise program with McConnell taping and biofeedback decreased pain and improved function based on the Functional Index Questionnaire versus home exercise and monitored therapy. In addition, the Protonics orthosis versus no treatment resulted in a patellofemoral congruence angle change; McConnell taping versus Couman bandage improved satisfaction with applied therapy and isokinetic muscle strength at 300°/s of knee flexion. No other findings included in the review studies were statistically significant. The included studies were inadequate in their methodologic quality and incomplete in their research-based evidence, which was obtained by their investigators.

Conclusions:
According to the systematic review by D'hondt et al, the strength of retrieved research-based evidence of effectiveness of orthotic devices in the treatment of patellofemoral pain syndrome was graded C. This grade was appropriate because all trials had low-quality methodologic evidence to support or reject the effectiveness of orthotics and taping techniques in reducing pain. Although very little scientific evidence is available regarding the use of orthotics and taping techniques, D'hondt et al identified trends in orthotics and taping techniques that should be considered in clinical practice. A comprehensive exercise and stretching program with tape application was more effective in decreasing worst pain and usual pain and increasing functional improvement. This finding indicates that patellofemoral pain syndrome is best treated by using more than 1 intervention. In addition, no difference was apparent in pain outcomes between McConnell taping technique and Couman bandage: neither technique resolved pain. The Protonics orthosis actively affected patellar tracking by reducing internal rotation of the femur and compression on the lateral aspect of the patella. As a result, the Protonics orthosis reduced pain compared with no treatment. In contrast, the Couman bandage is used only to guide the patellar tracking pattern and massage the structures around the patella during motion. Yet a home exercise program with the addition of a stretching program and McConnell taping decreased pain and increased function, which may suggest that a combination of treatment approaches is needed to effectively treat the condition, as found in previous studies.