Treatment of lateral epicondilitis using three different local injection modalities: a randomized prospective clinical trial

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Shows Superiority Over Injections for Pain Relief and Grip Strength Recovery in Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To examine the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and injection therapies by synthesizing direct and indirect evidence for all pairs of competing therapies for lateral epicondylitis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched for all appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs), assessing the effect of ESWT or injection therapies. The primary outcome was short-term (≤3 months) and medium-term (>3 months but ≤12 months) pain, while the secondary outcomes were grip strength and patient-reported outcome measures. All outcomes were assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities to determine a hierarchy of treatments. Sensitivity analysis was performed to eliminate potential therapeutic effects of normal saline (NS) and exclude trials that included patients with acute lateral epicondylitis (LE).

RESULTS

40 RCTs were included to evaluate ESWT and five different injection therapies, including corticosteroids (CSs), autologous whole blood, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A), and dextrose prolotherapy (DPT). DPT (-.78 [-1.34 to -.21]), ESWT (.57 [-.89 to -.25]), PRP (-.48 [-.85 to -.11]), and BoNT-A (-.43 [-.84 to -.02]) outperformed placebo for short-term pain relief; ESWT (-.44 [-.85 to -.04]) outperformed placebo for medium-term pain relief. DPT was ranked as the most optimal short-term and medium-term pain reliever (SUCRA, 87.3% and 98.6%, respectively). ESWT was ranked as the most optimal short-term and medium-term grip strength recovery (SUCRA; 79.4% and 86.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

DPT and ESWT were the best two treatment options for pain control and ESWT was the best treatment option for grip strength recovery. CSs were not recommended for the treatment of LE. More evidence is required to confirm the superiority in pain control of DPT among all these treatment options on LE.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, meta-analysis of Level I randomized controlled trials.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection With Percutaneous Needling for Recalcitrant Lateral Epicondylitis: Comparison of Tenotomy and Fenestration Techniques

Background

Recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a common debilitating condition, with numerous treatment options of varying success. An injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been shown to improve LE, although it is unclear whether the method of needling used in conjunction with a PRP injection is of clinical importance.

Purpose

To determine whether percutaneous needle tenotomy is superior to percutaneous needle fenestration when each is combined with a PRP injection for the treatment of recalcitrant LE.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A total of 93 patients with recalcitrant LE were treated with a PRP injection and percutaneous needle fenestration (n = 45) or percutaneous needle tenotomy (n = 48) over a 5-year study interval. Preoperative patient data, including visual analog scale for pain (VAS-P), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) scores and grip strength, were obtained from a chart review and compared with postoperative values obtained prospectively. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of complications, need for additional interventions, return to work, and patient satisfaction.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 40 months, significant improvements in VAS-P (mean, -6.1; 95% CI, -6.8 to -5.5; P < .0001), QuickDASH (mean, -46; 95% CI, -52 to -40; P < .0001), and PRTEE (mean, -57; 95% CI, -64 to -50; P < .0001) scores and grip strength (mean, +6.1 kg; 95% CI, 4.9 to 7.3; P < .0001) were observed across the entire study cohort, with no significant differences noted between the fenestration and tenotomy groups. Nine of 45 patients (22%) underwent additional procedures to treat recurrent symptoms in the fenestration group compared with 5 of 48 patients (10%) in the tenotomy group (P = .05). No complications occurred in any patients, and no patients expressed dissatisfaction with their treatment course.

Conclusion

A PRP injection with concomitant percutaneous needling is an effective treatment for recalcitrant LE, with sustained improvements in pain, strength, and function demonstrated at a mean follow-up of longer than 3 years. Although the method of concomitant needling does not appear to have a significant effect on treatment outcomes, more aggressive needle tenotomy is less likely to require conversion to open tenotomy than needle fenestration in the short term to midterm.

Intra-articular findings in symptomatic minor instability of the lateral elbow (SMILE)

PURPOSE

Lateral epicondylitis is generally considered an extra-articular condition. The role of minor instability in the aetiology of lateral elbow pain has rarely been considered. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation of lateral ligamentous laxity with aspects of intra-articular lateral elbow pathology and investigate the role of minor instability in lateral elbow pain.

METHODS

Thirty-five consecutive patients aged between 20 and 60 years with recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis who had failed conservative therapy and had no previous trauma or overt instability, were included. The presence of three signs of lateral ligamentous patholaxity and five intra-articular findings were documented during arthroscopy. The relative incidence of each of these was calculated, and the correlation between patholaxity and intra-articular pathology was evaluated.

RESULTS

At least one sign of lateral ligamentous laxity was observed in 48.6% of the studied cohort, and 85.7% demonstrated at least one intra-articular abnormal finding. Radial head ballottement was the most common sign of patholaxity (42.9%). Synovitis was the most common intra-articular aspect of pathology (77.1%), followed by lateral capitellar chondropathy (40.0%). A significant correlation was found between the presence of lateral ligamentous patholaxity signs and capitellar chondropathy (p = 0.0409), as well as anteromedial synovitis (p = 0.0408).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost one half of patients suffering from recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis display signs of lateral ligamentous patholaxity, and over 85% demonstrate at least one intra-articular abnormality. The most frequent intra-articular findings are synovitis and lateral capitellar chondropathy, which correlate significantly with the presence of lateral ligamentous patholaxity. The fact that several patients demonstrated multiple intra-articular findings in relation to laxity provides support to a sequence of pathologic changes that may result from a symptomatic minor instability of the lateral elbow (SMILE) condition.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Injection of tennis elbow: Hit and miss? A cadaveric study of injection accuracy

PURPOSE

Different injection therapies are used in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (LE). Usually, the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) tendon is affected. Therefore, an injection should be aimed at the origin of this tendon. This study demonstrates the accuracy of manual injections in the treatment of LE.

METHODS

Ten surgeons have injected a cadaver elbow with acrylic paint, using the same injection technique (i.e. number of perforations, amount of injected fluid) that they in daily practice would use in the treatment of LE. After the injection, an arthroscopy and dissection of the elbow were performed. The injection technique and localization of acrylic paint were reported.

RESULTS

Only a third of the injections were (partially) localized in the ECRB tendon; 60 % were localized intra-articular.

CONCLUSION

Injections carried out manually for the treatment of LE are not accurate, resulting in the majority being localized intra-articular. For future research to the effect of injection therapy in the treatment of LE, it is important that injections should be performed in a reproducible and standardized way.

A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Corticosteroid Injection for Enthesopathy of the Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis Origin

PURPOSE

The null hypothesis that there is no effect of corticosteroid injection on visual analog scale for pain in patients with enthesopathy of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (eECRB) origin 6 months after treatment was tested. Our secondary hypotheses were that there is no effect of corticosteroid injection on pain intensity at 1 and 3 months after treatment; that there is no effect of corticosteroid injection on grip strength at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment; and that there is no effect of corticosteroid injection on Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores at 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment.

METHODS

EMBASE, PubMed Publisher, MEDLINE, OvidSP, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central were searched for relevant studies. Studies were eligible if there was (1) a description of corticosteroid injection treatment for eECRB; (2) randomized placebo injection-controlled trials with at least 10 adults included with eECRB; (3) a full-text article available with data describing the mean differences between the corticosteroid and the control groups and the outcome measures used; and (4) follow-up of at least 1 month. In total, 7 randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of corticosteroid injection with a placebo injection on symptoms of eECRB were included in our meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We found no difference in pain intensity 6 months after injection of corticosteroids or placebo. Pain intensity was slightly, but significantly, lower 1 month, but not 3 months, after steroid injection. There were no significant differences in grip strength or Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score at any time point.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that there is no difference in pain intensity between corticosteroid injection and placebo 6 months after injection. We interpret the weight of evidence to date as suggesting that corticosteroid injections are neither meaningfully palliative nor disease modifying when used to treat eECRB.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic I.

Ultrasound-Guided Elbow Procedures

High-resolution ultrasonography can help clinicians visualize key anatomic structures of the elbow and guide periarticular and intra-articular injections. Historically, most procedures done around the elbow have been done using landmark guidance, and few studies have reported the accuracy of ultrasonography-guided injections in the elbow region. This article reviews common musculoskeletal disorders about the elbow that can be evaluated with ultrasonography, reviews the literature on ultrasonography-guided injections of the elbow region, and describes the senior author's preferred approach for the most commonly performed elbow region injections.

Factors associated with operative treatment of enthesopathy of the extensor carpi radialis brevis origin

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the factors associated with variation in the rate of surgery for enthesopathy of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (eECRB).

METHODS

We used a large database from 3 academic hospitals including 5964 patients with the diagnosis of eECRB from 2001 to 2007. Of those, 244 patients (4%) had surgery for eECRB. We used the date of the first encounter as the date of diagnosis. We also recorded the date of the first cortisone injection and surgery for eECRB. We used Cox multivariable regression analysis to find factors associated with surgery. We considered the following explanatory factors: age, sex, race, diabetes, a diagnosis of major depression, a diagnosis of an anxiety disorder, hospital, provider (surgeon vs. nonsurgeon), corticosteroid injection, and the time from diagnosis to the first cortisone injection.

RESULTS

The hazard ratio of having surgery was 12-times greater if the initial provider was an orthopedic surgeon rather a nonsurgeon and 1.7-times greater at 1 of the 2 hospitals. The rate of surgery varied substantially, ranging from 0% to 22%. Corticosteroid injection delayed the time to surgery but was ultimately associated with a higher rate of surgery. The majority (86%) of surgeries were done within 1 year of the first documented office visit.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems likely that an emphasis on the preferences and values of the patient rather than the surgeon would decrease the variation in surgery rates for eECRB observed in this study. Methods for optimizing the influence of patient preferences and values on decision making (eg, decision aids) merit additional study.

Local anesthetic injections with or without steroid for chronic non-cancer pain: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Steroids are often combined with local anesthetic (LA) and injected to reduce pain associated with various chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) complaints. The biological rationale behind injection of a steroid solution is unclear, and it is uncertain whether the addition of steroids offers any additional benefits over injection of LA alone. We propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence for using steroids and LA vs. LA alone in the treatment of CNCP.

METHODS

An experienced librarian will perform a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases with search terms for clinical indications, LA, and steroid agents. We will review bibliographies of all relevant published reviews in the last 5 years for additional studies. Eligible trials will be published in English and randomly allocate patients with CNCP to treatment with steroid and LA injection therapy or injection with LA alone. We will use the guidelines published by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes that we collect and present. Teams of reviewers will independently and in duplicate assess trial eligibility, abstract data, and assess risk of bias among eligible trials. We will prioritize intention to treat analysis and, when possible, pool outcomes across trials using random effects models. We will report our findings as risk differences, weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences for individual outcomes. Further, to ensure interpretability of our results, we will present risk differences and measures of relative effect for pain reduction based on anchor-based minimally important clinical differences. We will conduct a priori defined subgroup analyses and use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate the certainty of the evidence on an outcome-by-outcome basis.

DISCUSSION

Our review will evaluate both the effectiveness and the adverse events associated with steroid plus LA vs. LA alone for CNCP, evaluate the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach, and prioritize patient-important outcomes guided by IMMPACT recommendations. Our results will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with chronic non-cancer pain and identify key areas for future research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015020614.

What is the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for tendinopathy? An overview of systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness and systematic review of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is a common complaint causing characteristic pain in the lateral elbow and upper forearm, and tenderness of the forearm extensor muscles. It is thought to be an overuse injury and can have a major impact on the patient's social and professional life. The condition is challenging to treat and prone to recurrent episodes. The average duration of a typical episode ranges from 6 to 24 months, with most (89%) reporting recovery by 1 year.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence concerning the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for LET.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive search was conducted from database inception to 2012 in a range of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to summarise the current evidence concerning the clinical effectiveness and a systematic review for the cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for LET. We identified additional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that could contribute further evidence to existing systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and other important databases from inception to January 2013.

RESULTS

A total of 29 systematic reviews published since 2003 matched our inclusion criteria. These were quality appraised using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist; five were considered high quality and evaluated using a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A total of 36 RCTs were identified that were not included in a systematic review and 29 RCTs were identified that had only been evaluated in an included systematic review of intermediate/low quality. These were then mapped to existing systematic reviews where further evidence could provide updates. Two economic evaluations were identified.

LIMITATIONS

The summary of findings from the review was based only on high-quality evidence (scoring of > 5 AMSTAR). Other limitations were that identified RCTs were not quality appraised and dichotomous outcomes were also not considered. Economic evaluations took effectiveness estimates from trials that had small sample sizes leading to uncertainty surrounding the effect sizes reported. This, in turn, led to uncertainty of the reported cost-effectiveness and, as such, no robust recommendations could be made in this respect.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical effectiveness evidence from the high-quality systematic reviews identified in this overview continues to suggest uncertainty as to the effectiveness of many conservative interventions for the treatment of LET. Although new RCT evidence has been identified with either placebo or active controls, there is uncertainty as to the size of effects reported within them because of the small sample size. Conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness are also unclear. We consider that, although updated or new systematic reviews may also be of value, the primary focus of future work should be on conducting large-scale, good-quality clinical trials using a core set of outcome measures (for defined time points) and appropriate follow-up. Subgroup analysis of existing RCT data may be beneficial to ascertain whether or not certain patient groups are more likely to respond to treatments.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003593.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Quality of research and quality of reporting in elbow surgery trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are high in the hierarchy of scientific evidence, but possible sources of bias should be identified or even excluded. This systematic review assessed the methodologic quality and the quality of reporting of the RCTs on the treatment of elbow pathology.

METHODS

A systematic review of RCTs was performed on the treatment of elbow pathology. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant trials. Thirty-five of the initial 540 articles being an (pseudo) RCT on invasive treatment of elbow pathology in humans were included. These were scored with the use of an adapted Checklists to Evaluate A Report of a Nonpharmacologic Trial (CLEAR-NPT). To assess quality of reporting, points were administered to the articles based on the results from CLEAR-NPT list. The highest possible score for quality is 26 points.

RESULTS

The average quality score was 18.1 points (range, 10-25 points). The mean scores were 19.5 for trials published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, 19.8 for those published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and 20.3 for those published in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The most important finding was that the overall quality and the quality of reporting has not improved over the years and that the overall quality of the selected studies and the quality of reporting in these trials is not related to the journal they are published in.

Non-surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Non-surgical approaches to treatment of lateral epicondylitis are numerous. The aim of this systematic review is to examine randomized, controlled trials of these treatments.

METHODS

Numerous databases were systematically searched from earliest records to February 2013. Search terms included "lateral epicondylitis," "lateral elbow pain," "tennis elbow," "lateral epicondylalgia," and "elbow tendinopathy" combined with "randomized controlled trial." Two reviewers examined the literature for eligibility via article abstract and full text.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight articles met eligibility criteria: (1) a target population of patients with symptoms of lateral epicondylitis; (2) evaluation of treatment of lateral epicondylitis with the following non-surgical techniques: corticosteroid injection, injection technique, iontophoresis, botulinum toxin A injection, prolotherapy, platelet-rich plasma or autologous blood injection, bracing, physical therapy, shockwave therapy, or laser therapy; and (3) a randomized controlled trial design. Lateral epicondylitis is a condition that is usually self-limited. There may be a short-term pain relief advantage found with the application of corticosteroids, but no demonstrable long-term pain relief. Injection of botulinum toxin A and prolotherapy are superior to placebo but not to corticosteroids, and botulinum toxin A is likely to produce concomitant extensor weakness. Platelet-rich plasma or autologous blood injections have been found to be both more and less effective than corticosteroid injections. Non-invasive treatment methods such as bracing, physical therapy, and extracorporeal shockwave therapy do not appear to provide definitive benefit regarding pain relief. Some studies of low-level laser therapy show superiority to placebo whereas others do not.

CONCLUSIONS

There are multiple randomized controlled trials for non-surgical management of lateral epicondylitis, but the existing literature does not provide conclusive evidence that there is one preferred method of non-surgical treatment for this condition. Lateral epicondylitis is a condition that is usually self-limited, resolving over a 12- to 18-month period without treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of level of evidence.

Treating lateral epicondylitis with corticosteroid injections or non-electrotherapeutical physiotherapy: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the current evidence for the efficacy of corticosteroid injection and non-electrotherapeutic physiotherapy compared with control for treating lateral epicondylitis.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

PARTICIPANTS

We searched five databases in September 2012 for randomised controlled studies with a minimum quality rating. Of the 640 studies retrieved, 11 were included, representing 1161 patients of both sexes and all ages.

INTERVENTIONS

Corticosteroid injection and non-electrotherapeutic physiotherapy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Relative risk (RR) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for overall improvement, pain and grip strength at 4-12, 26 and 52 weeks of follow-up.

RESULTS

Corticosteroid injection gave a short-term reduction in pain versus no intervention or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (SMD -1.43, 95% CI -1.64 to -1.23). At intermediate follow-up, we found an increase in pain (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.51), reduction in grip strength (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.24) and negative effect on the overall improvement effect (RR 0.66 (0.53 to 0.81)). For corticosteroid injection versus lidocaine injection, the evidence was conflicting. At long-term follow-up, there was no difference on overall improvement and grip strength, with conflicting evidence for pain. Manipulation and exercise versus no intervention showed beneficial effect at short-term follow-up (overall improvement RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.82), but no significant difference at intermediate or long-term follow-up. We found moderate evidence for short-term and long-term effects of eccentric exercise and stretching versus no intervention. For exercise versus no intervention and eccentric or concentric exercise and stretching versus stretching alone, we found moderate evidence of no short-term effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroid injections have a short-term beneficial effect on lateral epicondylitis, but a negative effect in the intermediate term. Evidence on the long-term effect is conflicting. Manipulation and exercise and exercise and stretching have a short-term effect, with the latter also having a long-term effect.

Lateral epicondylitis: review of injection therapies

Lateral epicondylitis has several different treatment methods, with no single agreed upon therapy. This article summarizes the current literature on injection therapies for lateral epicondylitis. Glucocorticoid, botulinum toxin, autologous blood, platelet-rich plasma, hyaluronic acid, polidocanol, glycosaminoglycan, and prolotherapy injections are discussed.

The effects of corticosteroid injection versus local anesthetic injection in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a randomized single-blinded clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

This study seeks to compare two treatment methods of lateral epicondylitis: corticosteroid injection (CSI) and a local anesthetic injection (LAI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-blinded randomized clinical trial, 138 patients with the diagnosis of lateral epicondylitis were assigned either into CSI group receiving methylprednisolone 1 ml (49 patients) or LAI group (51 patients) receiving procaine 1 ml 2 % in a single dose at the maximal point tenderness site. The primary outcome measure was elbow disability using Quick DASH, and secondary outcome measures were pain intensity using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and recurrence rate at pretreatment visit and at 3-, 6- and 12-week post-treatment visits.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the patients in both groups for demographic factors including age, gender, dominant hand, involved hand, and work pressure. Before treatment, the patients in both groups were suffering from the same rates of elbow disability and pain as measured by Quick DASH and VAS, respectively, (p > 0.05). In general, the recovery rate (comparison between pretreatment visit and last post-treatment visit) was significantly more effective and higher in CSI than LAI. CSI was dramatically more effective at 3-week visit, but less and less effective at 6- and 12-week visits. At 12-week visit the recurrence rate was 34.7 % (17 patients) in CSI group.

CONCLUSION

For lateral epicondylitis, CSI has the best short-term treatment results yet the highest recurrent rates. The combination of CSI with other treatment option or with a change in injection technique from single injection to peppering injection may be promising.

Comparative effectiveness of injection therapies in lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Injection therapy with glucocorticoids has been used since the 1950s as a treatment strategy for lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow). Lately, several novel injection therapies have become available.

PURPOSE

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of injection therapies in patients with lateral epicondylitis.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing different injection therapies for lateral epicondylitis were included provided they contained data for change in pain intensity (primary outcome). Trials were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Network (random effects) meta-analysis was applied to combine direct and indirect evidence within and across trial data using the final end point reported in the trials, and results for the arm-based network analyses are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs).

RESULTS

Seventeen trials (1381 participants; 3 [18%] at low risk of bias) assessing injection with 8 different treatments-glucocorticoid (10 trials), botulinum toxin (4 trials), autologous blood (3 trials), platelet-rich plasma (2 trials), and polidocanol, glycosaminoglycan, prolotherapy, and hyaluronic acid (1 trial each)-were included. Pooled results (SMD [95% confidence interval]) showed that beyond 8 weeks, glucocorticoid injection was no more effective than placebo (-0.04 [-0.45 to 0.35]), but only 1 trial (which did not include a placebo arm) was at low risk of bias. Although botulinum toxin showed marginal benefit (-0.50 [-0.91 to -0.08]), it caused temporary paresis of finger extension, and all trials were at high risk of bias. Both autologous blood (-1.43 [-2.15 to -0.71]) and platelet-rich plasma (-1.13 [-1.77 to -0.49]) were also statistically superior to placebo, but only 1 trial was at low risk of bias. Prolotherapy (-2.71 [-4.60 to -0.82]) and hyaluronic acid (-5.58 [-6.35 to -4.82]) were both more efficacious than placebo, whereas polidocanol (0.39 [-0.42 to 1.20]) and glycosaminoglycan (-0.32 [-1.02 to 0.38]) showed no effect compared with placebo. The criteria for low risk of bias were only met by the prolotherapy and polidocanol trials.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found a paucity of evidence from unbiased trials on which to base treatment recommendations regarding injection therapies for lateral epicondylitis.

Evidence-based radiology (part 2): Is there sufficient research to support the use of therapeutic injections into the peripheral joints?

INTRODUCTION

This review article addresses the best evidence currently available for the effectiveness of injection therapy for musculoskeletal conditions involving the peripheral joints. The research is presented by anatomical region and areas of controversy and the need for additional research are identified.

DISCUSSION

Randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses and systematic reviews are lacking that address the effectiveness of therapeutic injections to the sternoclavicular, acromioclavicular, ankle and foot joints. No research studies of any kind have been reported for therapeutic injections of the sternoclavicular joint. With the exception of the knee, possibly the hip and patients with inflammatory arthropathies, research does not unequivocally support the use of therapeutic joint injections for most of the peripheral joints, including the shoulder. Additionally, controversy exists in some areas as to whether or not corticosteroids provide better outcomes compared to local anesthetic injections alone.

CONCLUSION

When viscosupplementation injections are compared to corticosteroids in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, the evidence supports the use of viscosupplementation for more prolonged improvement in outcomes, with corticosteroids being good for short-term relief.