Dynamic proprioceptive training improves functional recovery in sprinters with patellofemoral pain: A randomized trial.

This randomized trial compared two 12-week rehabilitation approaches for 60 recreational sprinters with patellofemoral pain (kneecap pain), a condition often linked to discomfort, poor balance, and reduced athletic function. Thirty participants received dynamic proprioceptive training (exercises focused on balance and body-position sense, including perturbation-based drills), while the other 30 followed a conventional strengthening program. Both groups trained three times weekly and were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Both groups improved significantly over time on pain, dynamic balance, and hop distance.

However, at 12 weeks the proprioceptive training group showed larger improvements than the strengthening group across all three measures, with reported mean differences favoring proprioceptive training. Because both groups improved, the within-group gains alone cannot be attributed solely to either intervention, but the abstract does report statistically significant between-group differences favoring dynamic proprioceptive training. The abstract does not describe blinding of participants or therapists (only assessors), nor does it report adverse events, limiting broader conclusions about safety or long-term durability.

This study looked at 60 recreational sprinters with a type of kneecap pain called patellofemoral pain syndrome. Half did a 12-week program of dynamic proprioceptive training, which uses balance and body-awareness exercises, including exercises that challenge stability.

The other half did a more traditional strengthening program. Both groups trained three times a week for 12 weeks. Pain, balance, and hopping ability (a measure of leg function) improved in both groups over the 12 weeks.

However, people in the balance-focused group showed greater improvements than those in the strengthening group by the end of the study, based on statistically reported differences between groups. Because both groups improved, it is not possible to say strengthening had no benefit, only that the balance-based approach showed larger average gains in this study. The study did not report on side effects, and participants likely knew which treatment they were doing, which can influence how people report pain or perform on tests.

Longer-term outcomes beyond 12 weeks were not described.

This is a summary of research, not medical advice. Talk to your own healthcare provider about anything affecting your care.

This assessor-blinded RCT (n=60, 30 per arm) compared 12 weeks of dynamic proprioceptive training against conventional strengthening in recreational sprinters with unilateral PFPS. Primary outcomes were NPRS, Y-Balance Test, and single-hop distance, with LSI and a composite Recovery Efficiency Index as secondary measures. Both arms improved significantly over time (p<0.001), and between-group analyses favored the DPT arm at 12 weeks for pain (MD 1.01 NPRS points), dynamic balance (MD 5.73 cm), and hop distance (MD 35.84 mm), with reported confidence intervals excluding zero.

This supports a statistically significant between-group difference, though the abstract does not state a predefined clinical importance threshold for these differences, so calling them clinically meaningful should be tempered by that gap. Key limitations include lack of clarity on participant/therapist blinding beyond assessor blinding, no reported adverse event data, and no stated follow-up beyond 12 weeks. Single-center or multi-center status and baseline group comparability are not detailed in the abstract, and replication with blinding safeguards and longer follow-up would strengthen confidence in the sensorimotor training approach.