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

Lateral Epicondylitis: Treatment Preferences from the Potential Patient Perspective

Background

Knowing the questions and concerns that patients have regarding treatment options for lateral epicondylitis may allow for shared-decision making and potentially superior patient outcomes and satisfaction. In the present study, we aimed to further delineate patient preferences with treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

Methods

An online, survey-based, descriptive study was conducted through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Survey participants were presented with a clinical scenario regarding lateral epicondylitis and asked four questions regarding treatment preferences for nonoperative treatment, whether they would consider platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection, and whether they would consider surgical intervention for recalcitrant symptoms. A Likert scale was used for responses. McNemar chi-square test was used for paired nominal data for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 238 survey responses were included. A majority (63%) of respondents elected to proceed with formal physical therapy. When given additional information regarding corticosteroid injections, 50.8% of respondents reported preferring physical therapy. There were no differences between groups for questions 1 and 2 (P = 0.90). Of the respondents, 75.2% were "likely" or "extremely likely" to consider PRP injection. When asked about surgical intervention, 74.8% of respondents were "likely" or "extremely likely" to proceed with continued symptoms.

Conclusions

It is important to include patient preferences in treatment discussions of lateral epicondylitis. Survey respondents preferred formal physical therapy for initial treatment. A surprising majority of respondents were likely to consider a PRP injection. With prolonged symptoms, respondents were interested in discussions of surgical intervention and thus, it should continue to be offered to patients with recalcitrant symptoms.

TikTok content as a source of health education regarding epicondylitis: a content analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the validity and informational value of TikTok content about epicondylitis. The hypothesis tested herein was that TikTok video content would not provide adequate and valid information.

METHODS

The term "epicondylitis" was used as a keyword to comprehensively search for TikTok videos, and the first 100 videos that were retrieved were subsequently included for analysis. The duration, number of likes, number of shares and number of views were recorded for each video. Furthermore, the videos were categorized on the basis of their source (medical doctor, physiotherapist, or private user), type of information (physical therapy, anatomy, clinical examination, etiopathogenesis, patient experience, treatment, or other), video content (rehabilitation, education, or patient experience/testimony), and the presence of music or voice. Assessments of video content quality and reliability were conducted using the DISCERN tool, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and the Global Quality Score (GQS).

RESULTS

A total of 100 videos were included in the analysis: 78 (78.0%) were published by physiotherapists, 18 were published by medical doctors (18.0%), and 4 were published by private users (4.0%). Most of the information pertained to physical therapy (75; 75.0%) and most of the content was about rehabilitation (75; 75.0%). The mean length of the videos was 42.51 ± 24.75 seconds; the mean number of views was 193,207.78 ± 1,300,853.86; and the mean number of comments, likes, and shares were 22.43 ± 62.54, 1578.52 ± 8333.11, and 149.87 ± 577.73, respectively. The mean DISCERN score, JAMA score, and GQS were 18.12 ± 5.73, 0.80 ± 0.53, and 1.30 ± 0.52, respectively. Videos posted by medical doctors/private users had higher scores (p < 0.05) than videos posted by physiotherapists. Videos that focused on education or patient experience had higher scores (p < 0.05) than videos based on rehabilitation.

CONCLUSIONS

TikTok can be an unreliable source of information regarding epicondylitis treatment. It is common to find nonphysicians who share medical advice on the platform, with medical treatments demonstrating the weakest level of supporting evidence. Elbow surgeons should advise their patients that treatment recommendations from TikTok may not align with established guidelines.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV-Cross-sectional study.

Therapeutic Effects of Dry Needling on Lateral Epicondylitis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the therapeutic effects of dry needling on lateral epicondylitis and identify a relatively more effective needling technique.

DATA SOURCES

English databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Taylor & Francis, ProQuest, Cochrane, Ovid, and Embase) and Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP) were searched.

STUDY SELECTION

This study included randomized controlled trials for comparing the effectiveness of dry needling with other treatment methods for lateral epicondylitis. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity and elbow disability, while the secondary outcome measures included grip strength and upper limb function.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction was performed by 2 researchers who used the Cochrane risk of bias analysis tool and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database checklist to assess the risk of bias and methodological quality of the included studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the quality of evidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 17 studies that involved 979 subjects were included in this research. Dry needling exhibited a significant advantage in improving pain intensity among patients with lateral epicondylitis within 1 week after treatment (mean difference [MD]=-0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.88 to -0.02). Within 1 week and in the follow-ups that exceeded 1 week, dry needling also demonstrated better improvement in elbow disability (<1 week: standardized mean difference [SMD]=-1.37, 95% CI, -1.88 to -0.86; ≥1 week: SMD=-1.32, 95% CI, -2.23 to -0.4) and grip strength (<1 week: SMD=0.27, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.53; ≥1 week: SMD=0.45, 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.88). Trigger point dry needling with local twitch response exhibited more significant improvement in pain intensity within 1 week (MD=-1.09, 95% CI, -1.75 to -0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

Dry needling demonstrates good therapeutic effects on pain intensity (within 1 week), function, and grip strength among patients with lateral epicondylitis. Local twitch response is necessary in treatment that targets trigger points.

Efficacy of PowerBall Versus Mulligan Mobilization With Movement on Pain and Function in Patients With Lateral Epicondylitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background Lateral epicondylitis (LE), sometimes referred to as tennis elbow or lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET), is one of the most common repetitive stress disorders in the elbow joint. Often, this involves the attachment of the extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle. This study's primary focus is on treating people with LE, a condition that causes repetitive movements of the upper extremities. There is currently no research on how PowerBall gadget workouts affect the function and pain of individuals with lateral epicondylitis. Exercises using the "PowerBall device," which applies both intrinsic and extrinsic pressure to the wrist, elbow, and shoulder muscles, are thought to be beneficial forms of resistance training. It has been shown that there are improvements in strength, function, range of motion (ROM), discomfort, and quality of life (QOL). On the other side, it has been demonstrated that LE patients have reduced discomfort while using Mulligan Mobilization with Movement (MMWM). Methods The 50 patients with LE were split into two groups for the single-blinded, randomized clinical study after baseline assessment and randomization: Group A was the intervention group, and Group B was the conventional group. The "PowerBall device" exercise was provided to participants in Group A, and MMWM was given to those in Group B. Both groups can benefit from basic workouts and ultrasonography by following the prescribed routine. Quantification of pain, function, grip strength, and range of motion was done at the start and finish of therapy using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), portable dynamometer, and goniometer. Results After therapy, both groups showed considerable improvement (p<0.05). Both descriptive and inferential statistics were employed in the data analysis. Numerous statistical tests were employed, such as the student's paired and unpaired t-test and the chi-square test. From a statistical and clinical perspective, Group A's outcomes were more significant. On the visual analog scale, there was a decrease in pain intensity for wrist and elbow mobility at rest (p<0.0003), activity (p<0.003), PRTEE (p<0.001), grip strength (p<0.03), and range of motion (p<0.01). Both groups' assessments after rehabilitation indicated increases in pain and function; however, Group A (0.03) benefited more and saw early success with the PowerBall device. Conclusion Findings show that a three-week program incorporating resistance training exercises mediated by a "PowerBall device" enhances upper limb performance beyond traditional exercise treatment and increases grip strength, wrist extension strength, internal and external rotator concentric and eccentric strength. The findings and observations indicate that both groups have significantly improved.

Evaluation of the efficiency of an ultrasound-supported infiltration technique in patients with tennis elbow applying the ITEC medical device: a multicenter study

Background

The treatment of lateral epicondylitis remains unsatisfactory in certain cases. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficiency of an ultrasound-guided infiltration combined with fenestration of the extensor tendon postulating a 50% reduction in pain on exertion within 6 months.

Methods

In a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter study design, 68 patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis and symptoms lasted for at least 6 weeks were included. Each hospital has been assigned for Traumeel (A), autologous whole blood (B), or dextrose (C) in advance. Preinterventional, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 and 12 months after infiltration, patient-related outcome parameter, and dorsal wrist extension strength were documented. Preinterventional (obligate) and after 6 months (optional) radiological evaluation (magnetic resonance imaging) was performed.

Results

The Visual Analog Scale showed a significant reduction after 6 months in all groups (A. 4.8-2.5, B. 6.2-2.3, C. 5.8-2.4). Similar results could be observed with Subjective elbow value, Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Score, Mayo Elbow Performance Score, and Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation. The loss of strength could be completely compensated after about 6 months. Magnetic resonance imaging did not fully reflect clinical convalescence. Re-infiltrations were sometimes necessary for final reduction of symptoms (A = 11, B = 8, C = 4). Switching to surgical intervention was most frequently observed in group C (A = 2, B = 1, C = 5). In 14.5% of the cases, no improvement of the symptoms could be achieved with this method.

Conclusion

The primary hypothesis of a significant long-term pain reduction of at least 50% could be achieved regardless of the medication chosen.

Comparison of efficacy of ultrasound-guided platelet rich plasma injection versus dry needling in lateral epicondylitis-a randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

To assess whether Ultrasound guided dry needling is adequate for both common extensor tendon tears and tendinosis or whether ultrasound guided platelet rich plasma (PRP) has a superior outcome when compared to dry needling when there are tears of the common extensor tendon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial conducted between November 2018 and April 2020. 40 patients diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis based on clinical and sonographic features and having comparable baseline characteristics were randomly assigned to the two study groups (dry needling and PRP). Inclusion criteria were patients aged 20 years or more who were symptomatic for at least 3 months with sonographic evidence of lateral epicondylitis. Exclusion criteria were complete tear of common extensor tendon confirmed on ultrasound and presence of other associated diseases like osteoarthritis of shoulder and elbow.

RESULTS

There was significant improvement in the visual analogue scale pain score in PRP group compared to the dry needling group at 9 months. However, this difference was not evident at 3 and 6 months follow-up. Mean improvement in common extensor tendon thickness in PRP group (5.1 mm at 3 months and 4.3 mm at 6 months) was slightly better than dry needling (4.4 mm at 3 months and 4.0 mm at 6 months). There was no difference in tear (if present) healing between both groups at 3 months. However at 6 months follow up, PRP demonstrated significant (mean-2.5) healing in tear compared to dry needling (mean-3.1).

CONCLUSION

Two injections of Ultrasound guided PRP are more beneficial non operative treatment compared to ultrasound guided dry needling, in lateral epicondylitis.

Rehabilitation of the painful elbow

Although lateral elbow pain and medial ulnar collateral ligament injury are common musculoskeletal pathologies in overhead athletes, the evidence supporting specific interventions for managing these conditions is scarce. Management of these conditions has been guided mostly by expert opinion rather than empirical evidence, yet the lack of comparative data in the literature has not negatively affected return-to-play rates following surgery. However, an understanding of what is known regarding unimodal and multimodal treatments for lateral elbow pain and medial ulnar collateral ligament injury is needed for clinicians to select evidence-based treatment pathways and highlight what is not known to develop future high-quality investigations.

In the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis by Percutaneous Perforation, Injectables Have No Added Value

BACKGROUND

No single injection therapy has been proven to be superior in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. In most studies, the injection technique is not standardized, which makes it challenging to compare outcomes.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does injection with autologous blood, dextrose, or needle perforation only at the extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon origin produce better VAS pain scores during provocation testing at 5 months of follow-up? (2) Which percutaneous technique resulted in better secondary outcome measures: VAS during rest and activity, VAS during maximum grip, Oxford elbow score (OES), QuickDASH, Patient-related Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), or EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D)?

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial performed from November 2015 to January 2020, 166 patients with lateral epicondylitis were included and assigned to one of the three treatment groups: autologous blood, dextrose, or perforation only. Complete follow-up data were available for the primary outcome measures at the 5-month follow-up interval for 77% (127 of 166) of patients. Injections of the extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon were conducted in an accurate and standardized way. The three groups did not differ in terms of key variables such as age, gender, duration of symptoms, smoking habits, pain medication, and physiotherapy use. Data were collected at baseline and 8 weeks, 5 months, and 1 year after treatment and compared among the groups. The primary endpoint was the VAS pain score with provocation at 5 months. Our secondary study outcomes were VAS pain scores during rest, after activity, and after maximum grip strength; functional recovery; and quality of life. Therefore, we report the VAS pain score (0 to 100, with higher scores representing more-severe pain, minimum clinically important difference [MCID] 10), OES (0 to 48, with higher scores representing more satisfactory joint function, MCID 10), QuickDASH (0 to 100, with higher scores representing more severe disability, MCID 5.3), PRTEE (0 to 100, with higher scores representing more pain or more disability, MCID 20), EQ-5D/QALY (EQ-5D sumscore 0 to 1, with the maximum score of 1 representing the best health state, MCID 0.04), and EQ-5D VAS (0 to 100, with higher scores representing the best health status, MCID 8). For analysis, one-way analysis of variance and a linear mixed-model analysis were used. The analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Four patients from the perforation group opted to crossover to autologous blood after 5 months.

RESULTS

No injection therapy proved to be superior to any other in terms of VAS pain scores during the provocation test at 5 months of follow-up (VAS for perforation: 25 ± 31; autologous blood: 26 ± 27; dextrose: 29 ± 32; p = 0.35). For the secondary outcomes, only a clinically important difference was found for the QuickDASH score. Both the perforation-only group (-8 [98% CI -4 to -12]) and autologous blood (-7 points [98% CI -3 to -11]) had improved QuickDASH scores over time compared with the dextrose group (MCID 5.3; p < 0.01). For the other outcomes, no clinically important differences were found.

CONCLUSION

There is no benefit to injectable autologous blood and dextrose over perforation alone to treat lateral epicondylitis, and they are therefore not indicated for this condition.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Arthroscopic release and decortication provide earlier return to work with similar patient satisfaction compared to continued intensive conservative therapy for recalcitrant tennis elbow: a retrospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

Tennis elbow management has primarily been conservative over the years with over 90% of the cases being managed conservatively. Surgical intervention may be necessary only for symptomatic recalcitrant cases of tennis elbow cases. However, there are gaps in the literature when it comes to comparison of the return to pre-operative return to their work and level of activities among patients who undergo arthroscopic management and those who receive conservative management.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted to compare 23 patients receiving continued intensive conservative (CIC) management in group 1 with 24 patients undergoing arthroscopic release of the extensor carpi radialis brevis and lateral epicondyle decortication (ARD) in group 2. The study had a minimum follow-up period of 3.5 years. The researchers compared the groups in terms of return to work (RTW) at the same intensity or lower level and any changes in their previous work. Objective grip strength and patient-reported outcome measures, such as post-intervention satisfaction level (rated on a scale of 0-100) and visual analog scale (VAS) for residual elbow pain, were also compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Return to work (RTW) occurred significantly earlier in group 2 (mean 6.13 months) compared to group 1 (mean 4.64 months), and a greater number of patients in group 2 (13/24, 54.2%) were able to return to the same of work. Although not statistically significant, the ARD group exhibited comparable patient satisfaction (p = 0.62) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for residual elbow pain (p = 0.67). Grip strength was comparable (p = 0.084, 0.121) between the affected and unaffected sides of the bilateral upper extremities and among both groups of patients.

CONCLUSION

The use of ARD for RTE (recalcitrant tennis elbow) indicates a significantly earlier return to work (RTW) at the same or lower intensity level compared to the standard CIC therapy protocol. Objective grip strength was comparable to the non-affected side and among the two groups of patients receiving two different management modalities. Comparable patient-reported satisfaction and residual lateral elbow pain were also noted among both the groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective, comparative study, level III.

Clinical efficacy of botulinum toxin in lateral elbow tendinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Botulinum toxin injections for lateral elbow tendinopathy have been used as an alternative therapeutic option. However, few studies have quantitatively summarized the effect of botulinum toxin as well as its clinical significance. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy (based on pain and grip strength) and adverse events of botulinum toxin on lateral elbow tendinopathy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched until March 2023 for randomized controlled trials reporting the effects of botulinum toxin injections on lateral elbow tendinopathy. A random- or fixed-effects model (depending of inter-study variability) and generic inverse variance method were used to pool quantitative data from outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool.

RESULTS

A total of 8 clinical trials recruiting 438 subjects were included for meta-analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that botulinum toxin significantly reduced pain (mean difference [MD] -0.95, 95% CI [-1.63, -0.26], p=0.007) but it was not clinically relevant. No significant effect was detected for grip strength (MD-0.62kg, 95% CI [-2.25, 1.02], p=0.46) or in the risk for adverse events (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95% CI [0.05, 3.56], p=0.42) between botulinum toxin injection and control interventions.

DISCUSSION

The use of botulinum toxin reached greater pain relief than control interventions and normal saline after a period of 12 to 24 weeks. However, changes in pain relief did not reach clinical significance. The studies that had the greatest reduction in pain used higher doses of botulinum toxin (60 U). Additionally, differences in grip strength and adverse events did not reach statistical or clinical importance. A subanalysis indicated that botulinum toxin outperformed corticosteroid injections in terms of improving grip strength. Botulinum toxin only causes local and minimal side effects such as irritation, ecchymosis, and paralysis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Added value of ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle tenotomy over hydrodissection and physiotherapy in chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Aim of the study

There is no consensus on the most suitable non-surgical treatment of chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy. The aim of this pilot randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the size of effect of ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle tenotomy.

Material and methods

Three intervention arms were formed: 1) percutaneous needle tenotomy, hydrodissection, and physiotherapy; 2) hydrodissection and physiotherapy; and 3) physiotherapy alone. Patients with chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy were randomized. Clinical endpoints included multiple questionnaires after three months: Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain at rest and during activity, and EuroQol 5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L).

Results

Thirty patients were included of 128 screened. The QuickDASH score improved in the percutaneous needle tenotomy and physiotherapy group, but not in the hydrodissection group. The NRS pain at rest and during activity improved more in the percutaneous needle tenotomy (resp. -2 and -2) and hydrodissection (resp. -3 and -3) groups than in the physiotherapy (resp. +1 and -1) group. The EQ-5D-5L improved similarly in all groups.

Conclusions

Patients receiving percutaneous needle tenotomy and/or hydrodissection may show better results in terms of pain but not in their functional outcomes compared to those who received physiotherapy alone. The size of effect, however, is small, so a large sample size is needed for a future randomized controlled trial to further investigate these results.

Bracing or kinesio taping in the management of lateral elbow tendinopathy: A prospective, randomized single-blinded trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the effects of forearm counter force brace (FCB) and kinesio taping (KT) on pain severity, grip strength and functionality of patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET).

METHODS

The study was planned as a prospective, randomized and assessor-blinded study with 1-month follow-up period. Seventy-two patients, diagnosed as LET were randomly assigned to FCB (n = 41) or KT (n = 31) groups. In the FCB group, the patients were informed and instructed to wear the brace for three weeks continuously. In the KT group, tape was applied once a week for four weeks with muscle inhibition and fascia correction techniques. The outcome measures were pain pressure threshold (PPT), maximal pain-free hand grip strength measurement and patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation questionnaire (PRTEE). The assessments were performed at the baseline, immediately after treatment and one month later after treatment.

RESULTS

PPT and grip strength were significantly increased over time in both groups. Pain, function and total scores of PRTEE were significantly decreased in both FCB and KT groups. The effect size of the improvement in PRTEE function score was within acceptable clinical significance in the KT group. However, there was no significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain severity, grip strength and functionality of patients with LET improved over time in both FCB and KT groups. However, neither was superior in the management of LET.

Efficacy of Ultrasonic Tenotomy and Debridement and Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy

Purpose

To determine the efficacy of treatment of lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection and ultrasonic tenotomy and debridement (USTD) as well as risk factors for treatment failure.

Methods

This was a retrospective study including patients treated for LET with PRP or USTD between January 2018 and December 2021. The efficacy of both procedures was assessed using pain-related patient-reported outcome measures at the 12-week follow-up. Baseline subject characteristics and diagnostic ultrasound findings were analyzed as risk factors for failure of treatment. Failure was classified as a surgical indication for LET within a year of the PRP or USTD.

Results

Ultrasonic tenotomy and debridement and PRP both led to significant improvement in patient pain within the 12-week follow-up period. There was no significant difference in efficacy between the two procedures. Common extensor tendon tearing on ultrasound and Worker's Compensation cases were found to be risk factors for failure of USTD. Lateral collateral ligament complex involvement and injection were found to be risk factors for failure of PRP.

Conclusions

Platelet-rich plasma and USTD are both effective interventions for LET. They have separate risk factors for failure that should be taken in consideration while deciding the treatment approach. These procedures are minimally invasive alternatives to some of the more invasive surgical options to treat LET.

Type of study/level of evidence

Therapeutic III.

Nonoperative Management of Lateral Epicondyle Tendinopathy: An Umbrella Review

Objective

The primary objective of this review was to summarize systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting on nonoperative management of lateral epicondyle tendinopathy.

Methods

An umbrella review of all published systematic reviews and meta-analyses was performed. Three databases were searched using the key words "tennis elbow," "lateral epicondylitis," "non-operative," and "non-surgical modalities." The search was limited to English-language systematic reviews and meta-analyses between the years of 2000 and 2022.

Results

There were 114 systematic reviews/meta-analyses, of which 35 met our inclusion criteria. These articles reviewed the following nonoperative management strategies: ultrasound, shockwave therapy, injection procedures, low-level laser therapy, joint mobilizations, exercise therapy, and electrophysical modalities. Exercise therapy was beneficial in decreasing pain regardless of dosage or type. Conflicting results were seen with ultrasound, laser, and shockwave therapy. Corticosteroid injections provided the most short-term pain relief, and platelet-rich plasma and autologous blood injections were most effective in the long term.

Conclusion

A variety of nonoperative interventions were found to be effective for short- and long-term pain relief as well as functional improvement, with most interventions indicating mixed results. Due to variations in study populations and study quality, results should be interpreted with caution.

[Infiltration therapies for lateral epicondylopathy]

The therapy of the lateral epicondylopathy (tennis elbow) includes drug injection into the extensor tendon insertion in chronic cases. The choice of medication and the type of injection is decisive for the success of therapy. Furthermore, accurate application is indispensable for therapy success (e.g. peppering injection technique, ultrasound-supported injection technique). Corticosteroid injection is often associated with short-term success, so that other options have found their way into everyday practice. Objectification of treatment success is usually defined by Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements (PROM). With the introduction of Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCID), statistically significant results are put into perspective in terms of clinical significance. Therapy for lateral epicondylopathy was considered effective if the mean difference in score results between baseline and follow-up exceeded 1.5 points for the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), 16 points for Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH), 11 points for Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), and 15 points for Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS). However, the effectiveness must still be critically questioned according to meta-analytical evaluations, in which healing within 12 months was found in 90% of the cases of untreated chronic tennis elbow in the placebo groups. The use of substances, such as Traumeel (Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmbH, Baden-Baden, Germany), hyaluronic acid, botulinum toxin, platelet rich plasma (PRP), autologous blood or polidocanol, are based on various mechanisms. In particular, the use of PRP or autologous blood for the treatment of musculotendinous and degenerative articular pathologies has become popular, although the studies regarding effectiveness are inconsistent. PRP can be divided into leukocyte-rich (LR-PRP) and leukocyte-poor plasma (LP-PRP) according to its preparation. In contrast to LP-PRP, LR-PRP incorporates the middle and intermediate layers, but there is no standardized preparation described in the literature. Conclusive data regarding effective efficacy are still pending.

[Treatment of lateral and medial epicondylopathy : Are platelet-rich plasma, shock wave therapy, etc. effective for both?]

Lateral and medial epicondylopathy (epicondylitis), which are common and in most cases self-limiting, frequently result in relevant reduction of quality of life and may also affect the ability to work. Recently, the use of orthobiologics, such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP), has been proposed to promote tendon regeneration and is supposed to be a valuable treatment option. However, scientific data are conflicting and the short- and long-time results are controversial. The use of stem cells is new approach and preliminary clinical data are promising. Shock wave therapy is widely used and part of the daily routine in treating lateral epicondylopoathy, although it is questionable for medial epicondylopathy.

Medial Elbow Pain Syndrome: Current Treatment Strategies

Medial elbow pain is a common presentation that can be a challenge to appropriately treat for the orthopedic surgeon. Causes include medial epicondylitis, ulnar neuritis, ulnar collateral ligament injury, flexor pronator strain, or snapping medial triceps. A good outcome is typically achieved with adequate treatment of tendon degeneration at the common flexor tendon origin. Mainstay treatment is nonoperative modalities such as stretching, rest, activity modification, therapy, and injections. If nonoperative management fails, intermediate interventions such as extracorporeal shockwave therapy, platelet-rich plasma injections, prolotherapy, and ultrasound-guided percutaneous tenotomy can be attempted. Surgical treatments are dictated based on the severity of the pathology, involvement of soft tissues, and concomitant pathology. Medial elbow complaints can be multifactorial and require a broad differential diagnosis. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(2):e81-e88.].

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) in lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Consensus has not yet been reached regarding the optimal nonoperative treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Physiotherapy is often utilized, yet the specific modalities used can vary significantly, making this treatment arm quite broad. The role and efficacy of passive physiotherapy by way of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) are not well understood. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) with no active treatment.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane were searched through till September 20, 2021. All English-language randomized trials comparing passive electrophysiotherapy treatments compared with no active treatment/placebo of patients >18 years of age with lateral epicondylitis with minimum 6-month follow-up were included.

Results

In the pooled analysis of 2 trials, ESWT provided no benefit compared to no active treatment for pain (-7.063, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -19.16 to 3.89) or function (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.31 to 0.38, I ²  = 0%). TENS showed no improvement in function compared with control with a mean difference in PRTEE scores of 2.93 points (95% CI -8.30 to 2.43) at 12 months, nor were differences seen in pain scores at 12 months (P = .139).

Discussion

The available evidence does not support the use of passive electrophysiotherapy modalities, TENS or ESWT in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

Role of concomitant percutaneous pie crusting and local corticosteroid injection in lateral epicondylitis: a prospective, case control study

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis is an increasingly debilitating condition in working population. Evidence for conservative treatment modalities has been inconclusive. Percutaneous pie crusting of the common extensor origin at the lateral epicondyle at the time of local corticosteroid injection (CSI) has been proposed sparsely. The objective of this study was to analyze if concomitant CSI and pie-crusting of the common extensor origin provides better outcome than CSI alone in lateral epicondylitis.

METHODS

This case-control study on 236 patients was conducted at a single center between January 1, 2020, and May 31, 2022. Patients were divided into two groups (n=118 each) based on their preference. Group A underwent CSI alone and group B underwent pie crusting along with CSI. The clinical and functional outcomes of all patients were evaluated at 2, 4, 6, and 12-week post-procedure using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Nirschl score. The mean time for return to daily activities was also compared.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significant improvement in post-procedure outcome at successive follow-ups on intragroup longitudinal analysis (VAS: F=558.384 vs. F=1,529.618, Nirschl: F=791.468 vs. F=1,284.951). On intergroup analysis, VAS of group B was superior to that of group A; however, it was statistically significant (P&lt;0.05) only from the 6-week follow-up onwards. Nirschl score of group B was significantly better throughout the period of follow-up (P&lt;0.05). Group B returned to daily activities faster than Group A (6.2±0.44 weeks vs. 7.18±0.76 weeks).

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant pie crusting with CSI is recommended for lateral epicondylitis as it provides significantly better results than CSI alone.

Lateral Epicondylitis: Critical Analysis Review of Current Nonoperative Treatments

»

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) or tennis elbow is a common cause of elbow pain in the general population, especially women in the fourth and fifth decades of life who participate in repetitive forceful movements involving the wrist and forearm.

»

The pathogenesis of this overuse injury is believed to start from an overload event leading to a microtear in or near the origin of the extensor carpi radialis brevis that is subsequently prone to additional injury and structural weakness over time.

»

Treatment of LE often begins with a wide variety of nonoperative modalities including rest, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, bracing, and physical therapy. For recalcitrant symptoms, additional nonoperative therapies are implemented; however, there remains a lack of comparative efficacy between these adjunct treatments.

»

In this article, we examine the available literature regarding nonoperative management of LE and provide supplementary insight into the effectiveness of current modalities.

Is Low-Dose Dextrose Prolotherapy as Effective as High-Dose Dextrose Prolotherapy in the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis? A Double-Blind, Ultrasound Guided, Randomized Controlled Study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of prolotherapy (PrT) on pain, functionality, clinical improvement and to compare the 5% low and 15% high dose dextrose PrT in chronic lateral epicondylitis.

DESIGN

A double-blind, parallel groups, randomized controlled study.

SETTINGS

Outpatient Clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty patients (N=60), aged 44.30±10.31 years old, with chronic lateral epicondylitis were allocated randomly into 3 groups.

INTERVENTIONS

To Group 1 5% dextrose PrT, to Group 2 15% dextrose PrT, to Group 3 0.9% saline injections were done at 3 times (weeks 0, 3, 6), to the entheses of forearm extensors and annular ligament.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were handgrip strength, visual analog scale-rest (VAS-R), visual analog scale-activity (VAS-A), pressure-pain threshold, and Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Q-DASH). The secondary outcomes were clinical improvement (Disease Global Assessment Questionnaire), side effects, and complications. Primary outcomes were collected at baseline week 0, week 3, and 12. Secondary outcomes were collected at weeks 3 and 12.

RESULTS

In Group 2, VAS-A and VAS-R (at week 3), handgrip strength and pressure-pain threshold (at week 12) were significantly different than other groups (P<.05). In Groups 1 and 2, there was a difference in primary outcomes at week 12 than baseline (P<.05). In Group 3, there was no difference in VAS-R, VAS-A, and handgrip strength at weeks 3 and 12 than baseline (P>.05).

CONCLUSION

In chronic lateral epicondylitis, 5% and 15% dextrose PrT is more effective in pain, handgrip strength, functionality, and clinical improvement than %0.9 saline. There was no difference in functionality, clinical improvement, side effects, and complications between the PrT groups. 15% dextrose PrT was more effective in handgrip strength and pressure-pain threshold at week 12 and pain at week 3. We recommend 15% dextrose PrT based on this study.

Lateral epicondylitis of the elbow: an up-to-date review of management

Lateral epicondylitis, also known as tennis elbow, is an overuse tendinopathy of the common extensor origin of the elbow in patients involved in repetitive movement of the wrist and forearm. Lateral epicondylitis is a self-limiting condition, with operative management only recommended in severe, recalcitrant cases. This article reviews the recent updates on operative and non-operative management of lateral epicondylitis.

Editorial Commentary: Arthroscopic Debridement of Tennis Elbow Nonresponsive to Nonoperative Measures Is a Good Option and Clinical Outcomes Are Associated With Radiographic Outcomes

Chronic lateral epicondylitis, or "tennis elbow," is rare and affects 1% to 3% of adults annually. The initial treatment should be nonoperative and include physical therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication, rest, bracing, extracorporeal shock wave therapy, and injection therapy with various agents such as autologous blood, dextrose, corticosteroids, or platelet-rich plasma. The condition is self-limited, and approximately 80% of cases resolve. In refractory cases, arthroscopic release with debridement is a good surgical option but is not superior to open or percutaneous techniques. Recent research shows that a reduction in magnetic resonance imaging signal intensity in patients who respond to arthroscopic treatment correlates with pain reduction and functional outcome improvement.

Lateral Elbow Pain and Muscle Function Impairments

Although often described as a self-limiting condition and likely to resolve on its own, high recurrence rates and extended sick leave frame a need for effective non-surgical treatment for people with lateral elbow tendinopathy. The interrelationship of histological and structural changes to the tendon, the associated impairments in motor control, and potential changes in pain processing may all drive symptoms. This clinical practice guideline covers the epidemiology, functional anatomy and pathophysiology, risk factors, clinical course, prognosis, differential diagnosis, tests and measures, and interventions for managing lateral elbow tendinopathy in the physical therapy clinic. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(12):CPG1-CPG111. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.0302.

Elbow conditions: research priorities setting in partnership with the James Lind Alliance

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a UK-based James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership for elbow conditions and be representative of the views of patients, carers and healthcare professionals (HCPs).

SETTING

This was a national collaborative study organised through the British Elbow and Shoulder Society.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients, carers and HCPs who have managed or experienced elbow conditions, their carers and HCPs in the UK involved in managing of elbow conditions.

METHODS

The rigorous JLA priority setting methodology was followed. Electronic and paper scoping surveys were distributed to identify potential research priority questions (RPQs). Initial responses were reviewed and a literature search was performed to cross-check categorised questions. Those questions already sufficiently answered were excluded and the remaining questions were ranked in a second survey according to priority for future elbow conditions research. Using the JLA methodology, responses from HCP and patients were combined to create a list of the top 18 questions. These were further reviewed in a dedicated multistakeholder workshop where the top 10 RPQs were agreed by consensus.

RESULTS

The process was completed over 24 months. The initial survey resulted in 467 questions from 165 respondents (73% HCPs and 27% patients/carers). These questions were reviewed and combined into 46 summary topics comprising: tendinopathy, distal biceps pathology, arthritis, stiffness, trauma, arthroplasty and cubital tunnel syndrome. The second (interim prioritisation) survey had 250 respondents (72% HCP and 28% patients/carers). The top 18 ranked questions from this survey were taken to the final workshop where a consensus was reached on the top 10 RPQs.

CONCLUSIONS

The top 10 RPQs highlight areas of importance that currently lack sufficient evidence to guide diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of elbow conditions. This collaborative process will guide researchers and funders regarding the topics that should receive most future attention and benefit patients and HCPs.

Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and high-intensity laser therapy on pain, grip strength, and function in patients with lateral epicondylalgia: a randomized controlled study

This study aimed to compare the effects of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) on pain, grip strength, and function in patients with lateral epicondylalgia. This prospective randomized controlled study included 42 patients (22 women and 20 men, mean age: 37) divided into 3 groups. The first group received physiotherapy (n = 14), the second received physiotherapy combined with ESWT (n = 14), and the third received physiotherapy combined with HILT (n = 14). All participants underwent 10 physiotherapy sessions for 2 weeks, 5 sessions per week. In addition to physiotherapy, the ESWT group received 4 ESWT sessions, 2 sessions per week, and the HILT group received 4 HILT sessions, 2 sessions per week. The outcomes were pain intensity as assessed by Visual Analog Scale, grip strength by hand dynamometer, and function by the Duruoz Hand Index and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation-Turkish version questionnaire. The participants were assessed at the beginning of the study (T1/week 0), at the end of treatment (T2/2nd week), and at follow-up (T3/6th week). At follow-up (T3), a significant improvement was observed in all outcomes compared to baseline (T1) in all groups (P < 0.05). Inter-group comparison of the mean differences between baseline and end values showed that the HILT group was superior in all outcomes (P < 0.05). This study showed that physiotherapy alone combined with ESWT and HILT positively affected the treatment of lateral epicondylalgia. Physiotherapy combined with HILT was found to be the most effective for improving pain, grip strength, and function. Clinical trial number: NCT674325.

A systematic review on the efficacy of different types of platelet-rich plasma in the management of lateral epicondylitis

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is reported as an effective treatment for lateral epicondylitis (LE). Theoretically, different types of PRP have different therapeutic effects. However, there is controversy on the effects of different types of PRP in the treatment of LE. The purpose of this study was to systematically compare pain relief, functional improvement, and the success rate of treatment using 2 different types of PRP by reviewing and summarizing the data available in the current literature on LE after PRP injection.

METHODS

The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were reviewed. A computerized literature search was performed for related studies published from database inception to August 2021 using the following terms: lateral epicondylitis, tennis elbow, tendinopathy, lateral elbow pain, PRP, and platelet-rich plasma. The PRP patients included in our study were divided into those receiving leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) and those receiving leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) according to the different preparation methods. Outcomes of interest included patient characteristics, types and preparations of PRP, clinical outcomes, success rates, and the safety of treatment at short- and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies were evaluated in our analysis, including 2420 LE patients. LP-PRP was used in 19 of these studies, LR-PRP was used in 13, and both LP-PRP and LR-PRP were used in 1. Patients in both PRP groups showed significantly improved clinical outcomes after treatment compared with before treatment. The mean visual analog scale scores ranged from 6.1 to 8.0 before treatment, ranged from 1.5 to 4.0 at short-term follow-up, and ranged from 0.6 to 3.3 at long-term follow-up in the LR-PRP group. The mean visual analog scale scores ranged from 4.2 to 8.4 before treatment, 1.6 to 5.9 at short-term follow-up, and 0.7 to 2.7 at long-term follow-up in the LP-PRP group. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores in the LR-PRP and LP-PRP groups ranged from 47.0 to 54.3 and 30.0 to 67.7, respectively, before treatment and ranged from 20.0 to 22.0 and 5.5 to 19.0, respectively, at long-term follow-up. The success rates in the LR-PRP and LP-PRP groups ranged from 70% to 100% and 36% to 100%, respectively. The complication rate was lower in the LP-PRP group (3.9%) than in the LR-PRP group (6.4%, P = .029), with the main complication being temporary pain after PRP treatment.

CONCLUSION

PRP treatment demonstrated significant improvements in terms of pain relief and functional improvement in LE patients regardless of the type of PRP. There were no significant differences in pain relief and functional improvement between LR-PRP and LP-PRP. The main complication was temporary pain after PRP injection, and the complication rate in the LP-PRP group was lower than that in the LR-PRP group.

Comparative Effectiveness of Physical Therapy and Electrophysiotherapy for the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a common enthesopathy, possibly caused by overuse and repetitive activity. Although non-operative management is the primary approach for treating LE, clinical guidelines and the literature fail to identify the most effective non-operative treatment. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of physical therapy and electrophysiotherapy treatments for the treatment of LE.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus for peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of physical therapy and electrophysiotherapy treatments. Data related to article characteristics and outcomes (grip strength and pain VAS) were collected.

RESULTS

Twenty-three clinical trials, including 1,363 participants (mean [SD] age, 47.4 [7.5], 53.1% women) were eligible in this study. Pain VAS demonstrated significant reductions in scores following treatment with magnetic field (mean difference (MD) [95% CI],-1.88 [-2.66 to -1.11]), exercise (MD [95% CI], -0.90 [-1.69 to -0.1]), and acoustic waves (MD [95% CI], -0.83 [-1.37 to -0.29]) compared to placebo. For grip strength, no treatment modality was found to be significantly effective. A sensitivity analysis that excluded studies with high publication bias and high degrees of heterogeneity produced similar results to the main analysis with the exception of statistically improved grip strength after light therapy (MD [95% CI], 5.38 [1.71 to 9.04]) and acoustic wave therapy (MD [95% CI], 7.79 [2.44 to 13.15]).

CONCLUSION

Overall, electrophysiotherapy treatments should be prioritized over physical therapy. Magnetic field therapy was associated with pain reduction, whereas acoustic wave and light therapy were associated with increased grip strength.

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.

Multiple Perforations of the ECRB Tendon Using an Innovative Standardized, Reproducible Technique; A Cadaveric Study on Accuracy and Prospective Clinical Safety Assessment Pilot Study. No Adverse Effects in the First 122 Patients with Lateral Epicondylitis

BACKGROUND

In LE (Lateral Epicondylitis) otherwise known as Tennis Elbow, the Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis (ECRB) tendon is most commonly involved. In the majority of studies, injections are performed with a lack of standardization. The Instant Tennis Elbow Cure (ITEC) device has been developed to perform reproducible and standardized perforations by multiple needles. The goal of this pilot study was to estimate the accuracy of this ITEC device by means of a cadaveric study and to assess the clinical safety of this procedure.

METHODS

Ten cadaveric arms were injected using the ITEC device. The location and depth of the ECRB tendon was measured by ultrasound imaging. The accuracy of the infiltration was assessed by locating the injected dye through dissection and arthrotomy of the cadaveric elbow. A prospective clinical pilot study was conducted to assess the safety of the ITEC device in treating patients with chronic LE. An optional infiltration with an injection fluid was carried out?? Primary outcome measures were side effects and complications of the ITEC device occurring within a follow up period of 8 weeks after treatment.

RESULTS

In all cadaveric elbows the injection fluid ( in this case an injection fluid) was located at the ECRB tendon. In one cadaver, a minimal amount of dye was found intra-articular and in 3 cadavers a small quantity was located in the surrounding tissue of the ECRB tendon. 122 patients with LE were treated with the ITEC device. No adverse effects or complications were reported at 8-week follow up.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of LE using the ITEC device appears accurate and safe. It may improve future research since it is reproducible and it can be performed in a standardized way.

Effects of Hypertonic Dextrose Injection (Prolotherapy) in Lateral Elbow Tendinosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematic review the effectiveness of hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy (DPT) on pain intensity and physical functioning in patients with lateral elbow tendinosis (LET) compared with other active non-surgical treatments.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, Dimensions, Global Health, NHS Health Technology Assessment, AMED and OVID nursing database from inception to 15 June 2021, without language restrictions.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently identified parallel or cross-over RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of DPT in LET. The search identified 245 records; data from 8 studies (354 patients) were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed included studies. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to evaluate risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess quality of the evidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Pooled results favored the use of DPT in reducing tennis elbow pain intensity compared with active controls at 12 weeks post-enrollment, with standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.44 (95% CI -0.88 to -0.01, P =0.04) and of moderate heterogeneity (I²= 49%). Pooled results also favored the use of DPT on physical functioning compared with active controls at 12 weeks, with DASH score achieving mean difference (MD) -15.04 (95% CI -20.25 to -9.82, P < 0.001) and of low heterogeneity (I²= 0.0%). No major related adverse events have been reported.

CONCLUSIONS

DPT is superior to active controls at 12 weeks for decreasing pain intensity and functioning by margins that meet criteria for clinical relevance in the treatment of LET. While existing studies are too small to assess rare adverse events, for LET patients, especially those refractory to first-line treatments, DPT can be considered a non-surgical treatment option in carefully selected patients. Further high-quality trials with comparison with other injection therapies are needed.

Nonoperative treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There is an ongoing controversy regarding the nonoperative treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Given that the evidence surrounding the use of various treatment options for lateral epicondylitis has expanded, an overall assessment of nonoperative treatment options is required. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare physiotherapy (strengthening), corticosteroids (CSIs), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and autologous blood (AB) with no active treatment or placebo control in patients with lateral epicondylitis.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane were searched through till March 8, 2021. Additional studies were identified from reviews. All English-language randomized trials comparing nonoperative treatment of patients >18 years of age with lateral epicondylitis were included.

Results

A total of 5 randomized studies compared physiotherapy (strengthening) with no active treatment. There were no significant differences in pain (mean difference: −0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.56 to 0.41) or function (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −0.08, 95% CI: −0.46 to 0.30). Seven studies compared CSI with a control. The control group had statistically superior pain (mean difference: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.22 to 1.18) and functional scores (SMD: −0.35, 95% CI: −0.54 to −0.16). Two studies compared PRP with controls, and no differences were found in pain (SD: −0.15, 95% CI: −1.89 to 1.35) or function (SMD: 0.14, 95% CI: −0.45 to 0.73). Three studies compared AB with controls, and no differences were observed in pain (0.49, 95% CI: −2.35 to 3.33) or function (−0.07, 95% CI: −0.64 to 0.50).

Discussion

The available evidence does not support the use of nonoperative treatment options including physiotherapy (strengthening), CSI, PRP, or AB in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

Trends in Corticosteroid Injections for Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: An Analysis of 80,169 Patients

Corticosteroid (CS) injections are a frequently used treatment modality for lateral epicondylitis (LE) despite an increasing number of studies suggesting their lack of efficacy. The objective of this study was to review the annual utilization of CS injections for treatment of LE, as well as that of other nonsurgical treatments and surgical treatments, to understand how recent publications have affected the practice of physicians in treating LE.

Do hand therapists have a role in workplace-based education to manage tennis elbow? Beliefs about effective treatments among Australian hand therapists and medical practitioners

BACKGROUND

Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET), commonly known as tennis elbow, is a prevalent work-related upper extremity musculoskeletal disorder. Medical practitioners and hand therapists manage LET with commonly available clinic-based treatments, despite no sound evidence to suggest long-term relief and functional restoration for workers with LET. Workplace-based rehabilitation is effective for injured workers with other health conditions, but no studies have investigated this rehabilitation approach in the management of LET.

OBJECTIVES

(i) Identify, compare, and contrast Australian hand therapists' and medical practitioners' perceptions about the effectiveness of common treatments for LET, and (ii) obtain their views towards a hand therapist delivered workplace-based education approach.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 38 medical practitioners from Western Australia and 104 hand therapists around Australia completed online surveys. Independent t-tests were used to identify between-group differences in responses.

RESULTS

Despite some between-group differences regarding the perceived effectiveness of common LET treatments, both groups believed education about LET pathology, activity modification, postures, and workplace recommendations were most effective. Most medical practitioners (81%) and hand therapists (71%) believed workplace-based education delivered by a hand therapist would be beneficial for patients with acute and chronic LET.

CONCLUSION

Australian hand therapists and medical practitioners believed educational approaches were the most important component in the management of LET, and supported workplace-based educational interventions provided by hand therapists in the management of LET.

Postoperative rehabilitation in elbow surgery

Postoperative rehabilitation plays a crucial role in the treatment of elbow pathology. Depending on the type of surgery, the elbow may need to be protected. As a general rule, the elbow should not be immobilized for a prolonged period after surgery. A removable splint can be used to protect the soft-tissues immediately postoperative and the patient is encouraged to remove the splint several times daily to mobilize the elbow. Dynamic articulated braces can be used to encourage movement while ligament or tendon repairs are being protected. Literature on postoperative elbow rehab is scarce. In this paper we provide practical guidelines for specific surgical procedures.

Common tendinopathies around the elbow; what does current evidence say?

Tendinopathies are common causes of pain around the elbow resulting in significant functional impairment in athletes or the working-age population. Patients complain of a gradual onset pain with or without any specific trauma. Tissue histology shows chronic fibroblast and vascular proliferation, with a disorganized collagen pattern and absence of inflammatory mediators. Currently, numerous treatment options are described, but many of these are only supported by a heterogenous evidence base. Thus, management guidelines are difficult to define. Surgery is mostly indicated in selected cases that have failed non-operative management. This article reviews the pathophysiology and natural history of lateral and medial elbow tendinopathies, as well as distal biceps and triceps tendinopathies, and their current treatment options.

Efficacy of Nonoperative Treatments for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis is a common overuse injury affecting approximately 1 to 3 percent of the population. Although symptoms may disappear spontaneously within 1 year, the clinical guidelines for conservative treatment are not clear. The authors' objective was to examine the outcomes of nonsurgical treatments for lateral epicondylitis through a meta-analysis and provide a treatment recommendation using the available evidence.

METHODS

The authors searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify primary research articles studying conservative treatments (electrophysiotherapy, physical therapy, and injections) for lateral epicondylitis. The authors included randomized controlled trials published in peer-reviewed journals. Data related to outcomes (pain, grip strength, Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation score, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score) and complications were extracted.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Electrophysiotherapy was effective in improving pain [mean difference, -10.0 (95 percent CI, -13.8 to -6.1)], Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation score [mean difference, -10.7 (95 percent CI, -16.3 to -5.0)], and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score [mean difference, -11.9 (95 percent CI, -15.8 to -7.9)]; and physical therapy improved pain [mean difference, -6.0 (95 percent CI, -9.7 to -2.3)] and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation scores [mean difference, -7.5 (95 percent CI, -11.8 to -3.2)] compared to placebo. Injections did not improve any outcome measures. Patients who received electrophysiotherapy and injections reported higher adverse effects than physical therapy patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received electrophysiotherapy and physical therapy reported statistically and clinically improved scores in pain and function compared to placebo. Injections may put patients at higher risk for adverse effects compared to other conservative treatments. When managing lateral epicondylitis conservatively, electrophysiotherapy and physical therapy should be prioritized before other interventions.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, I.

Role of ultrasound-guided perineural injection of the posterior antebrachial cutaneous nerve for diagnosis and potential treatment of chronic lateral elbow pain

OBJECTIVE

To examine diagnostic and therapeutic utility of novel ultrasound-guided perineural injection of posterior antebrachial cutaneous nerve in chronic lateral elbow pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of ultrasound-guided perineural injection of the posterior antebrachial cutaneous nerve with local anesthetic with or without corticosteroid in patients with chronic lateral elbow pain. Data variables collected included patient demographics, illness course, diagnostic ultrasound findings, immediate pre- and post-injection pain using numeric rating pain scale between 0 and 10, injection complications, and post-injection outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (9 females and 6 males) with average age 46.9 (range 16-69 years) underwent 20 perineural injections between 2009 and 2019. Patients had on average 84% reduction in pain immediately after the injection (median pre- and post-procedure numeric rating pain scale of 6 and 0, respectively, p < 0.001). Patients had pain relief for an average of 15 h (range 2-48 h) when only local anesthetic was injected, compared with average pain relief of 26.5 days (range 2 h-43 days) when local anesthetic was combined with corticosteroid, p = 0.01.

CONCLUSION

Novel ultrasound-guided perineural anesthetic injections around the posterior antebrachial cutaneous nerve can be performed safely and have diagnostic and potentially therapeutic utility in select patients with chronic refractory lateral elbow pain.

Autologous Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) in the treatment of elbow epicondylitis and plantar fasciitis: medium to long term clinical outcome

Background and aim:

Platelet-Rich-Plasma(PRP) is a popular biological therapy especially used to regenerate different musculoskeletal tissues by releasing growth-factors and cytokines promoting cell proliferation, chemotaxis, differentiation, and angiogenesis. The

aim

was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of PRP for Lateral-Epicondylitis (LE) of the elbow and Plantar-Fasciitis (PF).

Methods:

A retrospective study was conducted including patients treated with a single topic autologous-PRP-injection between 1-1-2009 and 7-18-2019 for LE or PF at our institution; patients operated for the same problem, patients refusing the study or not traceable were excluded. Patients were assessed with VAS for pain and clinical scales.

Results:

33 patients were treated with PRP and 13 (8F, 5M) included: 4LE and 9PF for a total of 16 cases. The average pain level was 0.61±0.63: 1±1.41 for LE and 0,44±0 for PF. No significant side effect was reported. 4 PRP-treatments failed: 2LE and 2PF. OES and PRTEE gave excellent results for elbow. Average foot scores were AOFAS 98.2±5 and FADI 91.3±1. Patients were stratified and compared according to plantar arch conformation, follow-up length, healing time, time from diagnosis to PRP-treatment, therapies before PRP (physiotherapy, steroid infiltration or shock-waves), risk factors (standing work, sport, age, sex).

Conclusions:

As in other studies, our results do not allow to draw sufficiently valid conclusions regarding the effectiveness and safety of PRP in the treatment of LE and PF: in particular the statistical significance is limited by the small sample size. PRP can be chosen as a non-first-line treatment for LE and PF.

Utility of Percutaneous Ultrasonic Tenotomy for Tendinopathies: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Chronic tendinopathy is a challenging problem that can lead to significant disability and limitation in not only athletics but also activities of daily living. While there are many treatment techniques described for this overuse injury, no single modality has been proven superior to all others. With recent advances in medical technology, percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy (PUT) for tendinosis has gained traction with promising results.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the data published on PUT for treatment of tendinopathy, analyze the outcomes of the procedure, including duration of pain relief and patient-reported outcomes, and assess the rate of complications associated with the procedure.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar.

STUDY SELECTION

The following combination of keywords was entered into the electronic search engines: ultrasonic tenotomy, ultrasound tenotomy, Tenex, and ultrasonic percutaneous tenotomy. The search results were screened for studies relevant to the topic. Only English-language studies were considered for inclusion. Studies consisting of level 4 evidence or higher and those involving human participants were included for more detailed evaluation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

DATA EXTRACTION

Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were sorted and reviewed. Type of tendinopathy studied, outcome measures, and complications were recorded. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on the data collected.

RESULTS

There were a total of 7 studies that met the inclusion criteria and quality measures-5 studies involving the treatment of elbow tendinopathy and 1 study each involving the management of Achilles tendinopathy and plantar fasciitis. PUT resulted in decreased pain/disability scores and improved functional outcome scores for chronic elbow tendinopathy and plantar fasciitis. Results for Achilles tendinopathy showed modest improvement in the short term, but long-term data are lacking.

CONCLUSION

PUT is a minimally invasive treatment technique that can be considered in patients with tendinopathy refractory to conservative treatment measures. Further higher quality studies are necessary to accurately assess the comparative effectiveness of this treatment modality.

Physiotherapy for tennis elbow: a survey of knowledge and practice within the UK and Ireland

Background/Aims

The purpose of the survey was to investigate the current state of knowledge and practice regarding tennis elbow within a physiotherapy population. A secondary purpose was to explore attitudes towards emerging electrotherapeutic technologies in the treatment of tennis elbow and to ascertain if culturally, within physiotherapy, there could be bias against such technologies because of a historic lack of high-quality evidence surrounding them.

Methods

The survey was undertaken entirely online using an e-mail cascade and 253 responses were gained.

Results

Overall, respondents overestimated the strength of evidence supporting a list of common treatment modalities. Where electrotherapeutic modalities were concerned, however, the vast majority of the sample thought the evidence was poor. Where diagnosis and management were concerned the majority of respondents appeared to practice in an evidence-based fashion.

Conclusions

Perhaps the most important finding of the study is that a third of respondents thought they might be biased against new electrotherapeutic technologies, even if they were using them within a research setting. The implications of this are discussed in the context of how factors such as communication and therapist affects may change treatment outcomes.

Tennis elbow, study protocol for a randomized clinical trial: needling with and without platelet-rich plasma after failure of up-to-date rehabilitation

Background

The conservative management of lateral epicondylitis is known to be a difficult-to-treat annoying condition. A treatment with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is often performed, but its efficacy remains controversial.

Methods

This study is a single-center, randomized double-blind controlled trial, preceded by a case series. All the 232 planned patients of the case series will undergo an up-to-date comprehensive rehabilitation program, including focused extracorporeal shock waves therapy. This rehabilitation program is expected to have a maximum success rate 75%. It is therefore aimed to allocate a minimum of 58 patients with rehabilitation failure into the 1:1 randomized trial. Stratification is planned on age and lesion pattern. The masking will be quadruple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator & Outcome Assessor). The patients will undergo an ultrasound (US)-guided needling combined with either PRP (intervention group) or saline (control group). The primary endpoint will be the pain improvement from baseline (month 0) at 3 months on a 0–10 visual analog scale (VAS) during a maximal strength isometric contraction of the extensor carpialis brevis muscle. The main secondary endpoints will include the rehabilitation success rate and improvements from baseline at 3, 6, and 12 months of the following outcomes: (i) Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, (ii) Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) score, (iii) maximal grip strength on Jamar test, and (iv) the ultrasonographic evaluation of the US of the epicondylar tendons.

Discussion

The study results will provide insight into the effect of PRP as adjuvant therapy to tendon fenestration, and may contribute to identify the best preceding and concomitant rehabilitation protocol.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03987256. Registered on 20 August 2019.

Dextrose Prolotherapy Versus Normal Saline Injection for the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylopathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: To compare the effect of dextrose prolotherapy (DPT) with saline in the treatment of chronic lateral epicondylopathy (LE). Design: Triple-blinded randomized controlled trial. Setting: Physical medicine and rehabilitation outpatient clinic. Subjects: Sixty cases of chronic LE participants were included in the study. Methods: Participants were randomly divided into two groups as DPT and normal saline. Saline or hypertonic dextrose (15%) was injected at the baseline, and at the end of the 4th and 8th week. Assessments were performed at baseline, and at the end of the 4th, 8th, and 12th week. Outcome measures: Primary outcome measures were Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE-Total [PRTEE-T], PRTEE-Pain, PRTEE-Function); secondary outcome measures were Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Score (DASH) and pain-free handgrip strength. Results: Intragroup analysis demonstrated that both groups significantly improved in VAS, PRTEE, DASH scores, and handgrip strength during the study period (p < 0.001, for all outcome measurements in both groups). Intergroup analysis showed that PRTEE-T score changes between baseline-4th and -12th week; VASrest change between baseline and 4th week in the DPT group were significantly higher than the saline group (p = 0.041, p = 0.038, p = 0.013 respectively). There was no significant difference between groups in VAS, DASH scores, and handgrip strength between any time points, in terms of improvement (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Our study results showed that DPT outperformed saline in PRTEE-T score. Although saline seems to be a comparable clinical effect with DPT, further studies comparing the effects of saline injection and DPT are necessary, in chronic LE.

Acupuncture for lateral epicondylitis: A prisma-compliant protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Acupuncture has been widely used for relieving pain associated with musculoskeletal disorders, such as lateral epicondylitis. Although the effect of acupuncture on pain has been demonstrated in previous reviews, it is still under debate. This study is aimed at evaluating the efficacy of acupuncture to treat lateral epicondylitis and establishing the evidence systematically.

METHODS

Nine databases will be searched from their inception to May 2020 without language or publication status restrictions, including 3 English databases (MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), 5 Korean databases (Korean Medical Database, KoreaMed, Korean Studies Information Service System, Research Information Service System, Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System), and 1 Chinese database (China Knowledge Network Database). Only randomized controlled trials will be included. Pain intensity will be considered as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes will include the grip strength, total effective rate, and adverse events. Two independent researchers will perform the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. The methodological quality of the identified studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool. In the meta-analysis, continuous data will be expressed as mean and 95% confidence interval, and dichotomous data will be expressed as risk ratio and 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

The results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study would provide the evidence of whether acupuncture is effective for lateral epicondylitis.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42020186824.

Minimally invasive treatment of lateral epicondylitis

Lateral epicondylitis (LE), also known as tennis elbow, is the most common cause of elbow pain in adults, with approximately 1-3% of the general population being afflicted. Although the condition is usually self-limiting, pain can be a major hindrance, limiting daily activity and the work capacity of patients. As a result, many treatment options have become available with the aim to shorten the duration of the disease and increase the quality of life. Steroid injections, NSAIDs, topical creams, platelet-rich plasma, physical therapy, and kinesiotaping are considered conservative treatments, while surgical options are last-resort treatments reserved for refractory LE. In this review, we will provide a brief summary of LE and focus on addressing conservative and minimally invasive interventional options for the treatment of LE.

Platelet-rich Plasma or Autologous Blood Do Not Reduce Pain or Improve Function in Patients with Lateral Epicondylitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and autologous blood are commonly used therapies for lateral epicondylitis, but the evidence from randomized, placebo-controlled trials is conflicting. Thus, it is still unclear if patients benefit from these treatments.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In the setting of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we compared PRP, autologous blood, and saline injections in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis with respect to: (1) VAS pain scores, and (2) functional outcomes (DASH score and grip strength) 1 year after treatment.

METHODS

We performed a parallel-group, randomized, controlled participant- and assessor-blinded study including adults with clinically diagnosed lateral epicondylitis. We defined lateral epicondylitis as pain in the lateral humeral epicondyle area exacerbated during resisted wrist extension and epicondyle compression. The participants were recruited from a secondary referral center, after not responding to initial nonoperative treatment. Patients with other concomitant upper-limb symptoms and surgical treatment of the elbow were excluded. Randomization sequence was generated with computer software and concealed from the investigators. We randomized 119 participants to receive an injection of PRP, autologous blood, or saline (1:1:1) in the proximal insertion of the extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle; 40 participants received PRP, 40 received autologous blood, and 39 received a saline injection. To prepare the PRP, we collected venous blood with a syringe kit followed by centrifugation, whereas autologous blood group received unprepared blood injection. Two unblinded investigators gave injections while the participant was unable to see the injection. There was no formal postinjection rehabilitation protocol and the use of NSAIDs was similar between different treatment arms. Follow-up visits were at 4, 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after the injection. The primary outcome measure was improvement in pain, measured with VAS scale (without specification as to whether the pain was activity related or at rest; range 0-10; a higher score indicates worse pain; the minimum clinically important difference [MCID] on the 10-cm scale was 1.5 cm), from baseline to 52 weeks. The secondary outcomes were the DASH score (range 0-100; a higher indicates a poorer outcome, and the MCID was 10.2 points) and grip strength. All patients were included in the analyses, and analyses were performed using the intention-to-treat principle. There was no crossover between treatment groups. At 52 weeks, nearly all (95% [38 of 40]) participants in autologous blood group were available for analysis whereas 78% (31 of 40) and 82% (32 of 39) were available in PRP and saline groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov and funded by the local hospital district. With 40 patients in each group, we had 80% power to detect a clinically important improvement in pain (1.5 cm on the 10-cm VAS pain scale).

RESULTS

There were no clinically important differences in the mean VAS pain or DASH scores among the groups at any timepoint. At 52 weeks, the mean difference in the VAS score for pain was -0.2 (95% CI -1.5 to 1.1; p = 0.75) for PRP versus saline and 0.5 (95% CI -0.7 to 1.7; p = 0.40) for autologous blood versus saline. The corresponding mean differences in the DASH score were 0.0 (95% CI -9.2 to 9.2; p > 0.99) and 7.7 (95% CI -1.3 to 16.7; p = 0.09) and those for grip strength were 1.4 kg (95% CI -3.3 to 6.1; p = 0.56) and -0.2 kg (95% CI -5.0 to 4.5; p = 0.92). No complications occurred because of the injections.

CONCLUSIONS

PRP or autologous blood injections did not improve pain or function at 1 year of follow-up in people with lateral epicondylitis compared with those who were given a saline injection. However, because the 95% CIs did not exclude the MCID in VAS scores for autologous blood versus saline at 52 weeks, it is possible that a larger study could identify a between-group difference that we missed, but the effect size of that difference (based on our findings), even if present, is likely still to be small. Until or unless future randomized trials convincingly show a benefit either to PRP or autologous blood injections, we recommend against their use in patients with lateral epicondylitis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.