622 - Jumping out of Reality: The of Use of VR in Patellar Tendinopathy Rehabilitation

Friday, February 20, 2026

5:00 PM - 6:30 PM AST

Presenting Author(s)

FA

Faiad Alam, MPH

Medical Student
Texas Tech Health Science Center-School of Medicine
Lubbock, Texas, United States

Co-Author(s)

KN

Karthick Natesan, MS

Doctoral Candidate
TTUHSC
Lubbock, Texas, United States
AL

Aaron Likness, MA

PhD Candidate
Texas Tech Health Science Center
Lubbock, Texas, United States
BZ

Bei Zhang, MD, MSc

Associate Professor
Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Neurology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
Lubbock, Texas, United States
CJ

Charles R. James, PhD

Director of the Center for Rehabilitation Research
Texas Tech Health Science Center
Lubbock, Texas, United States

Corresponding Author(s)

LA

Lee Atkins, PhD

Assistant Professor
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
Lubbock, Texas, United States

Submitter(s)

FA

Faiad Alam, MPH

Medical Student
Texas Tech Health Science Center-School of Medicine
Lubbock, Texas, United States

Objectives: Compared to clinical settings, virtual reality (VR) can simulate dynamic, real-world environments, sparking growing interest in sports rehabilitation. Patellar tendinopathy is a prevalent sports injury, affecting about 21% of adult athletes. Prior studies highlighted that VR can increase ecological validity and potentially accelerate return to on-field activities. We evaluated VR’s effects on self-reported patellar tendon (PT) pain, PT force, and jumping biomechanics in a single-subject experimental study.

Design: A 24-year-old male with a 5-year history of right patellar tendinopathy reported jump-provoked PT pain. The individual performed 10 trials of a simulated volleyball block in VR and non-VR environments for a total of 20 trials. The VR condition included a custom environment of a volleyball match in a loud, crowded stadium while non-VR used a suspended volleyball from the ceiling in a laboratory. During each trial, pain was recorded using a 0–10 numerical scale. Lower limb biomechanics were recorded using a motion capture system, electromyography, and in-ground force plates. Outcomes included self-reported pain, peak PT force, and ankle and knee kinematics at the time of peak PT force. Independent t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests examined differences between biomechanical variables and pain, respectively.

Results: Compared to non-VR, there were no observed differences for pain (2.90±0.57 vs 2.70±0.82 points; p=0.46) or peak PT force (5.45±0.53 vs 5.75±0.52 N/kg; p=0.19) during VR. However, VR resulted in increased ankle dorsiflexion (18.8±0.9 vs 15.2±1.9 degrees; p< 0.001) and decreased knee flexion (63.2±4.8 vs 67.2±4.0 degrees; p=0.06) compared to non-VR.

Conclusions: VR did not increase this individual’s self-reported pain or risk for exposure to excessive PT force compared to non-VR conditions. Thus, in this case, VR may be beneficial for emulating real-world environments while practicing return-to-field tasks. Future investigations are needed to further explore VR’s effects on lower limb biomechanics in jumping activities and on patellar tendinopathy rehabilitation outcomes.