Skip to main content

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

  • Original article
  • Open access
  • Published:

The relationship between quadriceps fat pad syndrome and patellofemoral morphology: a case–control study



The purpose of this prospective case–control study is to investigate the relationship between quadriceps fat pad syndrome (QFPS) and patellofemoral morphology.

Materials and methods

Twenty-two patients with QFPS and 22 age- and gender-matched healthy volunteers were included. The diagnosis of QFPS was supported both clinically and radiologically. On magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), patellofemoral morphology was evaluated with 13 radiological measurements including trochlear sulcus angle, trochlear sulcus depth, trochlear facet asymmetry, trochlear condyle asymmetry, lateral trochlear inclination angle, patellar translation, tibial tubercle–trochlear groove (TT–TG) distance, Insall–Salvati ratio, patellotrochlear index, patellar tilt, the ratio between lateral and medial facet lengths, interfacet angle, and quadriceps tendon thickness. The mean of measurements was compared between groups using the Mann–Whitney U test.


There were 22 patients (12 male, 10 female) with mean age of 30.81 ± 1.41 (range 19–38) years in group I and 22 patients (12 male, 10 female) with mean age of 31.13 ± 1.31 (range 19–39) years in group II. The mean age and the gender distribution were statistically similar between groups (p = 0.845, p = 1, respectively). All measured values except for patellar tilt (p = 0.038) and TT–TG distance (p = 0.004) were similar (p > 0.05 for the other variables). However, all of the measured variables were within the normal range.


QFPS may not be associated with anatomical variations of the patellofemoral joint. Further studies are required to understand the etiology and risk factors.

Level of evidence

Level III, prospective case–control study


The intraarticular fat pad is a mass of intracapsular but extrasynovial adipose tissue that occupies the potential spaces within the knee joint. They act as a protective cushion between the quadriceps and patellar tendon, patella, and distal femur, prevent friction, and improve patellofemoral engagement during deep knee flexion and extension [1,2,3]. Furthermore, it is proposed that they also provide proprioceptive sensation [4, 5]. There are three distinct fat pads located around the extensor mechanism of the knee joint: the infrapatellar fat pad, also called Hoffa fat pad, the pre-femoral fat pad, and the quadriceps fat pad [1] (Fig. 1). The quadriceps fat pad (QFP), also called the suprapatellar fat pad, is located between the quadriceps tendon and the suprapatellar recess of the knee joint. It is the smallest fat pad and triangular-shaped with average size of 8 ± 2 mm in men and 7 ± 2 mm in women [3].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Sagittal fat-saturated, proton-density-weighted MRI image and corresponding illustration showing the location of the fat pads on the anterior aspect of the knee joint

Quadriceps fat pad syndrome (QFPS) is a rare cause of anterior knee pain, being characterized clinically by tenderness over the superior pole of the patella and pain on deep knee flexion [2, 5, 6]. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows hypertrophy with a typical convex appearance and discrete edema of the quadriceps fat pad characterized by high signal intensity on T2-weighted sagittal images (Fig. 2). In the absence of clinical findings, a diagnosis of QFPS cannot be made based solely on MRI findings because quadriceps fat pad edema (QFPE) may be present in the absence of anterior knee pain [2, 7]. In other words, QFPS is a clinical entity; however, QFPE is an imaging finding and may or may not be related to anterior knee pain [5].

Fig. 2
figure 2

a Appearance of normal quadriceps fat pad (yellow arrow). b A patient with QPFIS. The sagittal fat-saturated, proton-density-weighted MRI demonstrates typical convex appearance (red arrow) and increased signal and thickening within quadriceps fat pad (white star)

The etiology of QFPS is not fully understood yet. Previously, a few studies have attempted to explain the presence of edema with accompanying patellofemoral (PF) abnormalities [2, 7,8,9]. Most of these studies reported a mass effect of the QFP, being an incidental finding on knee MRI in retrospective study designs. An association with anterior knee pain was assumed; however, there was often a lack of a valid clinical diagnosis of QPFS, and control groups were selected from patients with other knee disorders. Thus, the objective of this study is to select patients with a clinical diagnosis of QFPS and test for the relation to PF morphological characteristics compared with a group of healthy subjects in a prospective case–control study design.

Patients and methods

Patients and study design

This study comprised two groups of patients. The first group consisted of consecutive patients who were admitted to the orthopedic outpatient clinic between January 2016 and January 2019 with the complaint of anterior knee pain and were considered to have fat pad impingement syndrome following clinical evaluation performed by an orthopedic surgeon. During physical examination, tenderness over the suprapatellar region and increased pain in the same region with deep knee flexion were used as clinical criteria [6, 10]. The same orthopedic surgeon examined all patients. Two typical imaging findings were used for the radiological diagnosis of QFPS on MRI: (1) presence of QFPE characterized by high signal intensity in the QFP that was 20% higher than the surrounding normal fat pad signal, and (2) presence of QFP hypertrophy characterized by convexity of the posterior aspect of the QFP and/or bowing of the posterior margin of the quadriceps tendon due to expansion of the fat pad. The signal intensity of QFP and the normal fat pad (using the Hoffa fat pad as a reference) was measured on sagittal fat-saturated, proton-density-weighted MRI images with standard-sized regions of interest. The contrast between normal and abnormal fat pad was calculated as a percentage.

Thus, the diagnosis of QFPS was supported both clinically and radiologically in all patients. Patients with QFPE on MRI without confirmatory clinical symptoms were excluded. In addition, patients who underwent surgical intervention of the knee or who had history of fracture around the knee joint, markedly distorted knee anatomy due to congenital or acquired deformities, patellofemoral cartilage lesions (grade 2B or higher according to modified Noyes cartilage lesion classification), or incomplete or inadequate clinical and radiological data were excluded from group I [11].

The second group was composed of healthy volunteers who were matched for age and gender to the first group and who had no history of knee problems and whose clinical examination findings were completely normal. One volunteer with an asymptomatic cartilage lesion of the patella, which was incidentally detected, was excluded from the control group.

During the time under study, 22 (12 female, 10 male) patients with mean age of 30.81 ± 1.41 (range 19–38) years met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Consequently, a sex- and age-matched control group composed of 22 volunteers (12 female, 10 male) with mean age of 31.13 ± 1.31 (range 19–39) years was prospectively formed. This study was carried out following the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments, and the institutional review board approved the study protocol (IRB approval date/issue: 10354421-2019/1-17.01.2019). Informed consent was obtained from all patients.

MRI protocol

The MRI examination was carried out using a 16-channel knee coil with a 1.5-T MRI device (Symphony, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). The imaging protocol included sagittal fast spin-echo, T1-weighted [repetition time (TR)/echo time (TE) 600/10, matrix 256 × 192, field of view (FOV) 16 × 16, slice thickness 3 mm], sagittal fat-saturated, proton-density-weighted (TR/TE 4000/30, matrix 256 × 192, FOV 16 × 16, slice thickness 3 mm), coronal fat-saturated, proton-density-weighted (TR/TE 2500/40, matrix 256 × 192, FOV 16 × 16, slice thickness 3 mm), and axial fat-saturated, proton-density-weighted (TR/TE 2900/40, matrix 256 × 192, FOV 16 × 16, slice thickness 4 mm).

Observers and reliability analysis

All anatomic measurements were performed on digital MRI images stored in picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) by two independent observers using Sectra IDS7 software (version 18.2, Sectra AB, Sweden). Both observers were radiologists with more than 10 years of experience in musculoskeletal radiology (senior and second authors). Interobserver reliability was calculated using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval. ICCs of 0.81–1.00, 0.61–0.80, 0.41–0.60, 0.21–0.40, and 0.00–0.20 were interpreted as excellent, good, moderate, fair, and poor, respectively [10]. All measurements showed excellent agreement with ICC ranging between 0.860 and 0.960. The measurements recorded by the senior author were used for the final analysis.

Measurements on MRI

To assess the trochlear and patellar morphology and the patellofemoral joint anatomy, (1) trochlear sulcus depth, (2) patellar translation, (3) trochlear condyle asymmetry (Fig. 3a), (4) trochlear sulcus angle, (5) trochlear facet asymmetry (Fig. 3b), (6) lateral trochlear inclination angle (Fig. 3c), (7) patellar tilt (Fig. 3d), (8) patellar interfacet angle (Fig. 3e), (9) lateral to medial patellar facet ratio (Fig. 3f), (10) Insall–Salvati ratio (Fig. 4a), (11) patellotrochlear index (Fig. 4b), (12) quadriceps tendon thickness (Fig. 4c), and (13) tibial tubercle–trochlear groove distance (Fig. 5) measurements were performed according to previous descriptions [3, 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Moreover, all patients were classified as normal or abnormal in accordance with the previously accepted normal range. Detailed descriptions of the measurement techniques are explained in figure legends.

Fig. 3
figure 3

a Measurement of trochlear sulcus depth, patellar translation, and trochlear condyle asymmetry. First, posterior condylar axis was drawn (line G). Perpendicular lines from the highest points of the medial (line A) and lateral (line C) facets, and the deepest point (line B) of the trochlear groove were drawn. Finally, the perpendicular distance from the posterior condylar axis to the medial corner of the patella (line D) was drawn. Trochlear sulcus depth was calculated as [(A + C)/2] − B and recorded in millimeters. Patellar translation was measured as the perpendicular distance between line C and line D and recorded in millimeters. Trochlear condyle asymmetry was calculated as [(A/C) × 100%] and recorded as a percentage. b Measurement of trochlear sulcus angle and trochlear facet asymmetry. Two parallel lines, one to the lateral facet of the trochlea (line E) and the second one to the medial facet of the trochlea (line F), were drawn. The angle (α) between these lines was measured as the trochlear sulcus angle. The ratio of the distance line E to line F was calculated as the trochlear facet asymmetry. c Measurement of lateral trochlear inclination angle (β) between the lateral trochlear slope (line H) and posterior condylar axis (line G). d Patellar tilt was defined as the angle (γ) formed between the transverse axis of patella (line I) and posterior condylar condyle line (line G). e Patellar interfacet angle was defined as the angle between the lateral patellar facet (line K) and medial patellar facet (line J). f The ratio of the lateral (line M) to the medial (line L) patellar facets was calculated. All measurement were performed on axial fat-saturated, proton-density-weighted MRI

Fig. 4
figure 4

a The ratio of patellar tendon length (Line B) to longest diagonal length of patella (line A) was calculated as the Insall–Salvati ratio. b The ratio of length of articular surface of patella (line C) to length of opposing femoral articular surface (line D) was calculated as patellotrochlear index. c The distance between the most anterior and most posterior border of the quadriceps tendon just over the patellar attachment was measured and recorded as quadriceps tendon thickness. All measurements were performed on sagittal fat-saturated, proton-density-weighted MRI

Fig. 5
figure 5

Measurement of tibial tubercle (TT) to trochlear grove (TG) was performed on two overlapping axial images. PCL, posterior condylar line; TG, perpendicular line from deepest point of trochlear groove to posterior condylar line; TG, perpendicular line from the tibial tubercle to posterior condylar line. TT–TG distance is the distance between red and blue lines

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics Base v.23 for Windows by the Department of Statistics. Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation, median, and range. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to determine whether the data were distributed normally. Comparative analysis of two independent groups was performed using the Mann–Whitney U test, Student’s t-test, and chi-square test. p < 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.


There were 22 patients (12 male, 10 female) with mean age of 30.81 ± 1.41 (range 19–38) years in group I and 22 volunteers (12 male, 10 female) with mean age of 31.13 ± 1.31 (range 19–39) years in group II. The mean age and the gender distribution were statistically similar between groups (p = 0.845, p = 1, respectively). All measured values except for patellar tilt (p = 0.038) and TT–TG distance (p = 0.004) were similar (p > 0.05 for the other variables) (Table 1). However, all of the measured variables were within the normal range (patellar tilt < 20°, TT–TG distance < 15 mm).

Table 1 Comparative data between normal individuals and QFPS group

A post hoc power analysis was conducted using G*Power software (version It has been reported that the most valuable radiological parameters to detect the presence of patellar maltracking reliably were TT–TG distance and patellar tilt [20]. Thus, the mean values of these variables were used for the calculation. With a sample size of 22 in each group and a two-tailed 5% significance level, power of 100% was reached for both variables.


The aim of the current study is to investigate the relationship between certain anatomical characteristics of the patellofemoral joint and QFPS. This small fat pad (FP) is a component of the extensor mechanism of the knee joint and has various functions during knee motion; thus, any alteration of the PF anatomy may cause excessive pressure that might lead to inflammation and, consequently, hypertrophy as a compensatory tissue reaction. In this prospective case–control study of patients with clinically diagnosed QFPS and radiologically confirmed mass effect of the QFP, most of the measured anatomical parameters of the PF joint did not differ significantly compared with a group of healthy subjects. Consistent with previous, mostly retrospective studies, it remains difficult to find a certain association between QFPS and measurable morphological changes, e.g., trochlear dysplasia or malalignment of the patella. In our study, we measured the TT–TG distance to be about 2–3 mm lower in the QFPS group than in the control group; however, we do not value this result as evidence for a changed morphology as the difference is low and there can be different results according to patient positioning during MRI examination. It is common to measure lower TT–TG in slight flexion compared with full extension due to the final external rotation of the tibia. Presumably, patients with knee pain are less willing to fully extend their knee during the examination, which must be considered during examination and measurement. The same conclusion can be drawn regarding the patellar tilt angle, which was about 2° higher in the control group, indicating stronger external rotation of the patella compared with the femur.

QFPE and the mass effect were first described by Roth et al. in 2004 [2]. They proposed that this imaging finding may not be incidental and might be related to anterior knee pain, anatomic variations of the extensor mechanism, and other coexisting knee abnormalities. In their study, MRIs of 92 knees were retrospectively reviewed, and 11 patients (12%) with quadriceps fat pad mass effect were identified. However, they could not show any association between anterior knee pain and the measured anatomic characteristics, or other accompanying lesions, between the patients with or without QFPE. They proposed three possible theories to explain the presence of quadriceps fat pad edema. The first theory was based on the impingement and the abnormal biomechanics of the extensor mechanism. Secondly, they thought that this might be an overuse injury and caused by chronic repetitive hyperflexion of the knee joint. Finally, it might be induced by other unrelated pathologies within the knee joint as a reactive inflammation. However, none of these theories could be proved or rejected with their data and study design.

In another retrospective study, Shabshin et al. reviewed 770 knee MRIs and detected quadriceps fat pad edema and mass effect in 32 knees of 29 patients (4.2%) [7]. However, less than one-third of patients (27.6%) had anterior knee pain. They investigated the relationship between QFPE and PF cartilage lesions, quadriceps tendon abnormalities, and patellar tendinosis but could not show any significant correlation. However, one of the patients in their cohort underwent biopsy and subsequent resection of the quadriceps fat pad. Pathological examination revealed vasculitis with obliteration of small vessels, and the patient’s symptoms were completely relieved. Based on their findings, they proposed that QPFE might be a new clinical entity analogous to Hoffa’s disease. During the same time interval, Sirvanci and Ganiyusufoglu reported that they had treated four patients who had QPFE with steroid injection [10]. A biopsy was also taken from one patient, and myxoid degeneration and inflammation were seen. Similarly, Van Le et al. reported one more patient who improved with US-guided steroid injection [21]. All these findings support that QFPE is not an incidental MRI finding alone but rather a distinct clinical entity characterized by inflammation and pain.

To understand the etiology of this new clinical entity, Tsavalas et al. retrospectively examined a large series of knee MRI (n = 879) and identified 110 (12.8%) patients with QFPE and mass effect [8]. Anterior knee pain was present in only six of these patients, and again they could not detect any significant difference in patellofemoral alignment and cartilage lesions between the case and control groups. As mentioned above, QFPE and clinical impingement syndrome are two different entities. While one of them describes a clinical condition, the other is just a radiological finding. The presence of radiological findings does not always mean that impingement findings or related anterior knee pain will occur. These studies are retrospective screening studies, and both case and control groups were collected incidentally from patients who already have knee problems. Therefore, neither the case nor control group was genuinely representative.

There is only one study in the relevant literature that contradicts our findings. Recently, Can et al. studied the relationship between the severity of QPFE (quadriceps fat pad signal intensity, dimensions, and posterior indentation) and the PF alignment and several anatomic characteristics of the PF joint [9]. There were no significant differences between severity groups with morphological measurements, but at least one pathological finding was present in 55 out of 61 patients (90.2%). They concluded that QFPE is related to pathologies related to the extensor mechanism and recommended that patellofemoral pathologies should be considered when QFPE is detected in knee MRI. However, a single measurement parameter associated with QFPS could not be elucidated.

Apart from these studies, two further studies have examined the relationship between QFPE and knee osteoarthritis. Wang et al. reported that QFPE and mass effect were associated with knee pain, radiographic findings of osteoarthritis (OA), and bone marrow lesions [22]. They proposed that QFPE might be a component of the knee OA disease, considering that OA is not confined to the cartilage and subchondral bone but involves all tissues surrounding the knee joint. In contrast, these findings were refuted with the study conducted by Fontenella et al. The morphological characteristics (volume and dimensions) of quadriceps fat pad were compared between normal, moderate OA, and end-stage OA groups [23]. No difference was determined among groups, suggesting that it is not clearly involved in OA. Because of these contradictory findings, it is not clear that the quadriceps fat pad is influenced by the pathogenesis of OA. Similarly, none of the patients in our case group had signs of knee OA. However, it should be noted that these patients were young subjects under 40 years of age.

There is only one clinical study dealing with the treatment of QFPS [6]. In this study, patients were allocated to steroid injection and physical therapy groups. In both groups, significant improvement was seen at 6 months follow-up. More importantly, QFPE regressed in control MRI studies. The findings of this study indirectly support our findings. Resolution of inflammation (both clinically and radiologically) without any intervention on the preexisting anatomical characteristics shows us that QFPS could be a transient inflammatory disease.

There are a number of strengths and limitations of this research. An important limitation of the study is the low case number due to the fact that clinically and radiologically confirmed QFPS is a rather rare diagnosis and patient data are limited. Moreover, there is no specific physical examination finding for the clinical diagnosis of QFPS; thus, the clinical diagnosis of patients might miss other causes of anterior knee pain, despite extensive efforts for exclusion. MRI is an expensive imaging modality, which limited the number of controls. Secondly, the radiologists could not be blinded to the presence or absence of edema during the measurements, which might be a potential bias. Finally, the lack of T2-weighted pulse sequence in the MRI protocol is another limitation. Besides these limitations, the current study has strengths, too. The control group was selected from healthy volunteers, and the diagnosis of QFPS was supported by clinical and MRI findings.


This prospective case–control study could not show any relationship between patellofemoral anatomy and the QPFS. Further studies on the etiology of this rare syndrome should be performed and should focus on other factors.

Availability of data and materials

The data are available upon request to the corresponding author.



Interclass correlation coefficient


Institutional review board


Magnetic resonance imaging




Picture archiving and communication systems




Quadriceps fat pad


Quadriceps fat pad edema


Quadriceps fat pad syndrome




Tibial tubercle–trochlear groove


  1. Grando H, Chang EY, Chen KC, Chung CB (2014) MR imaging of extrasynovial inflammation and impingement about the knee. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 22:725–741.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Roth C, Jacobson J, Jamadar D, Caoili E, Morag Y, Housner J (2004) Quadriceps fat pad signal intensity and enlargement on MRI: prevalence and associated findings. Am J Roentgenol 182:1383–1387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Staeubli HU, Bollmann C, Kreutz R, Becker W, Rauschning W (1999) Quantification of intact quadriceps tendon, quadriceps tendon insertion, and suprapatellar fat pad: MR arthrography, anatomy, and cryosections in the sagittal plane. Am J Roentgenol 173:691–698.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Benjamin M, Redman S, Milz S, Büttner A, Amin A, Moriggl B et al (2004) Adipose tissue at entheses: the rheumatological implications of its distribution. A potential site of pain and stress dissipation? Ann Rheum Dis 63:1549–1555.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Jarraya M, Diaz LE, Roemer FW, Arndt WF, Goud AR, Guermazi A (2018) MRI findings consistent with peripatellar fat pad impingement: how much related to patellofemoral maltracking? Magn Reson Med Sci 17:195–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ozdemir ZM, Aydingoz U, Korkmaz MF, Tunay VB, Ergen FB, Atay O et al (2016) Ultrasonography-guided injection for quadriceps fat pad edema: preliminary report of a six-month clinical and radiological follow-up. J Belg Soc Radiol 100(1):78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Shabshin N, Schweitzer ME, Morrison WB (2006) Quadriceps fat pad edema: significance on magnetic resonance images of the knee. Skelet Radiol 35:269–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tsavalas N, Karantanas AH (2013) Suprapatellar fat-pad mass effect: MRI findings and correlation with anterior knee pain. Am J Roentgenol.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Can TS, Yilmaz BK, Özdemir S (2019) Magnetic resonance imaging of the quadriceps fat pad oedema pattern in relation to patellofemoral joint pathologies. Pol J Radiol 84:e375–e380.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Sirvanci M, Ganiyusufoglu AK (2005) Quadriceps fat pad signal intensity and enlargement on MRI. Am J Roentgenol 184:1708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kijowski R, Blankenbaker DG, Davis KW, Shinki K, Kaplan LD, De Smet AA (2009) Comparison of 1.5- and 3.0-T MR imaging for evaluating the articular cartilage of the knee joint. Radiology 250:839–848.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15:155–163.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Sandberg BF, Tompkins MA (2018) The role of imaging in the evaluation of patellar instability. Asian J Arthrosc 3:10–16

    Google Scholar 

  14. Koskinen SK, Taimela S, Nelimarkka O, Komu M, Kujala UM (1993) Magnetic resonance imaging of patellofemoral relationships. Skelet Radiol 22:403–410.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dejour H, Walch G, Nove-Josserand L, Guier C (1994) Factors of patellar instability: an anatomic radiographic study. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 2:19–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Chhabra A, Subhawong TK, Carrino JA (2011) A systematised MRI approach to evaluating the patellofemoral joint. Skelet Radiol 40:375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Endo Y, Schweitzer ME, Bordalo-Rodrigues M, Rokito AS, Babb JS (2007) MRI quantitative morphologic analysis of patellofemoral region: lack of correlation with chondromalacia patellae at surgery. Am J Roentgenol 189:1165–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Aït-Si-Selmi T, Marie-Hardy L, O’Loughlin PF, Kobayashi K, Müller JH, Saffarini M et al (2020) Patellar facet ratio affects knee pain, stair climbing and stair descent after TKA without patellar resurfacing. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Miller T, Staron RB, Feldman F (1996) Patellar height on sagittal MR imaging of the knee. Am J Roentgenol 167:339–341.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Frings J, Dust T, Krause M et al (2020) Objective assessment of patellar maltracking with 3 T dynamic magnetic resonance imaging: feasibility of a robust and reliable measuring technique. Sci Rep 10(1):16770.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Le B, Harish S (2009) Quadriceps fat pad edema: sonographic depiction and sonographically guided steroid injection. J Ultrasound Med 28:959–962.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang J, Han W, Wang X, Pan F, Liu Z, Halliday A et al (2014) Mass effect and signal intensity alteration in the suprapatellar fat pad: associations with knee symptoms and structure. Osteoarthr Cartil 22:1619–1626.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fontanella CG, Belluzzi E, Rossato M, Olivotto E, Trisolino G, Ruggieri P et al (2019) Quantitative MRI analysis of infrapatellar and suprapatellar fat pads in normal controls, moderate and end-stage osteoarthritis. Ann Anat 221:108–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references




No funds have been received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Study conception and design: Y.Y., T.E., E.T., O.K.; acquisition of data: T.E., E.T., M.U., L.S.; analysis and interpretation of data: O.K., M.U., L.S.; drafting of manuscript: T.E., O.K., M.U., L.S., Y.Y.; critical revision: O.K., Y.Y., T.E., L.S., E.T. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ozkan Kose.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Institutional review board approved the study protocol.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was provided by the participants.

Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yuksel, Y., Ergun, T., Torun, E. et al. The relationship between quadriceps fat pad syndrome and patellofemoral morphology: a case–control study. J Orthop Traumatol 22, 17 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: