Q-angle represents the resultant force vector of the quadriceps and patellar tendons acting on the patella. An increased Q-angle has been considered a risk factor for many disorders and injuries. This literature review challenges the clinical value of static Q-angle and recommends a more dynamic movement evaluation for making clinical decisions. Although there are many articles about static Q-angle, few have assessed the value of dynamic Q-angle. We searched Scopus and PubMed (until September 2021) to identify and summarize English-language articles evaluating static and dynamic Q-angle, including articles for dynamic knee valgus (DKV) and frontal plane projection angle. We also used textbooks and articles from references to related articles. Although static Q-angle measurement is used systematically in clinical practice for critical clinical decisions, its interpretation and clinical translation present fundamental and intractable limitations. To date, it is acceptable that mechanisms that cause patellofemoral pain and athletic injuries have a stronger correlation with dynamic loading conditions. Dynamic Q-angle has the following three dynamic elements: frontal plane (hip adduction, knee abduction), transverse plane (hip internal rotation and tibia external rotation), and patella behavior. Measuring one out of three elements (frontal plane) illustrates only one-third of this concept. Static Q-angle lacks biomechanical meaning and utility for dynamic activities. Although DKV is accompanied by hip and tibia rotation, it remains a frontal plane measurement, which provides no information about the transverse plane and patella movement. However, given the acceptable reliability and the better differentiation capability, DKV assessment is recommended in clinical practice.
Keywords: dynamic knee valgus; dynamic q-angle; frontal plane projection angle; knee biomechanics; q-angle.
Copyright © 2022, Skouras et al.