Therapeutic ultrasound for acute ankle sprains

Regenerative Medicine in Orthopedic Surgery: Expanding Our Toolbox

Regenerative medicine leverages the body's inherent regenerative capabilities to repair damaged tissues and address organ dysfunction. In orthopedics, this approach includes a variety of treatments collectively known as orthoregeneration, encompassing modalities such as prolotherapy, extracorporeal shockwave therapy, pulsed electromagnetic field therapy, therapeutic ultrasound, and photobiomodulation therapy, and orthobiologics like platelet-rich plasma and cell-based therapies. These minimally invasive techniques are becoming prominent due to their potential for fewer complications in orthopedic surgery. As regenerative medicine continues to advance, surgeons must stay informed about these developments. This paper highlights the current state of regenerative medicine in orthopedics and advocates for further clinical research to validate and expand these treatments to enhance patient outcomes.

MRI Bone Abnormality of the Knee following Ultrasound Therapy: Case Report and Short Review

Ultrasound (US) therapy in sports and medical pathologies is widely used by many physiotherapists and sports medicine clinicians; however, data regarding their potential side effects remain rare. We report a case of a 21-year-old woman with iliotibial band (ITB) syndrome treated with a physiotherapy session combined with US therapy. She had twenty 7 min US sessions on the knee, for 3 months (US at 1 Mhz with an intensity between 1 and 2 W/cm²). Due to persistence of the ITB syndrome's symptomatology after the 3 months of physiotherapy sessions, an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) was carried out and revealed osteonecrosis-like bone abnormalities on the external femoral condyle, the external tibial plateau, and the proximal fibula. In view of these lesions, the ultrasonic therapy was stopped, and a repeat MRI demonstrated the progressive disappearance of these imaging abnormalities one year after the last US (ultrasound) treatment. In light of this case, we propose here a short review of reported osseous "osteonecrosis" abnormalities associated with US therapies.

Ankle injuries in athletes: A review of the literature

Ankle injuries are commonplace in the athletic population, with lateral ligament sprains accounting for the majority of them. The medial ligament complex, the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis as well as any of the bones that constitute the ankle joint can also be injured. Typical mechanisms of injury include inversion-plantarflexion and external rotation on a supinated, dorsiflexed or pronated foot. Lesions of the ankle present with similar symptoms of pain, swelling and tenderness. Therefore, a thorough history and physical examination must be obtained to make the correct diagnosis. This is especially critical for athletes as certain injuries can lead to termination of their career if not treated accurately on time. Imaging may be useful in some cases to confirm or rule out differential diagnoses. Most injuries can be managed conservatively using the Protection, Rest, Ice, Compression and Elevation protocol followed by a comprehensive rehabilitation programme. Surgery is reserved for grade III ligament tears that are refractory to initial non-operative treatment and displaced fractures that are unlikely to unite without surgical intervention. The objective of this review is to discuss the common ankle injuries encountered in the athletic population and the approaches to their diagnosis and management.

Acute ankle sprain in athletes: Clinical aspects and algorithmic approach

Acute ankle sprain is the most common lower limb injury in athletes and accounts for 16%-40% of all sports-related injuries. It is especially common in basketball, American football, and soccer. The majority of sprains affect the lateral ligaments, particularly the anterior talofibular ligament. Despite its high prevalence, a high proportion of patients experience persistent residual symptoms and injury recurrence. A detailed history and proper physical examination are diagnostic cornerstones. Imaging is not indicated for the majority of ankle sprain cases and should be requested according to the Ottawa ankle rules. Several interventions have been recommended in the management of acute ankle sprains including rest, ice, compression, and elevation, analgesic and anti-inflammatory medications, bracing and immobilization, early weight-bearing and walking aids, foot orthoses, manual therapy, exercise therapy, electrophysical modalities and surgery (only in selected refractory cases). Among these interventions, exercise and bracing have been recommended with a higher level of evidence and should be incorporated in the rehabilitation process. An exercise program should be comprehensive and progressive including the range of motion, stretching, strengthening, neuromuscular, proprioceptive, and sport-specific exercises. Decision-making regarding return to the sport in athletes may be challenging and a sports physician should determine this based on the self-reported variables, manual tests for stability, and functional performance testing. There are some common myths and mistakes in the management of ankle sprains, which all clinicians should be aware of and avoid. These include excessive imaging, unwarranted non-weight-bearing, unjustified immobilization, delay in functional movements, and inadequate rehabilitation. The application of an evidence-based algorithmic approach considering the individual characteristics is helpful and should be recommended.

Electrotherapy modalities for adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder)

BACKGROUND

Adhesive capsulitis (also termed frozen shoulder) is a common condition characterised by spontaneous onset of pain, progressive restriction of movement of the shoulder and disability that restricts activities of daily living, work and leisure. Electrotherapy modalities, which aim to reduce pain and improve function via an increase in energy (electrical, sound, light, thermal) into the body, are often delivered as components of a physical therapy intervention. This review is one in a series of reviews which form an update of the Cochrane review 'Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain'.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of electrotherapy modalities, delivered alone or in combination with other interventions, for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus and the ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) clinical trials registries up to May 2014, unrestricted by language, and reviewed the reference lists of review articles and retrieved trials to identify any other potentially relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials using a quasi-randomised method of allocation that included adults with adhesive capsulitis and compared any electrotherapy modality to placebo, no treatment, a different electrotherapy modality, or any other intervention. The two main questions of the review focused on whether electrotherapy modalities are effective compared to placebo or no treatment, or if they are an effective adjunct to manual therapy or exercise (or both). The main outcomes of interest were participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater, overall pain, function, global assessment of treatment success, active shoulder abduction, quality of life, and the number of participants experiencing any adverse event.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen trials (1249 participants) were included in the review. Four trials reported using an adequate method of allocation concealment and six trials blinded participants and personnel. Only two electrotherapy modalities (low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF)) have been compared to placebo. No trial has compared an electrotherapy modality plus manual therapy and exercise to manual therapy and exercise alone. The two main questions of the review were investigated in nine trials.Low quality evidence from one trial (40 participants) indicated that LLLT for six days may result in improvement at six days. Eighty per cent (16/20) of participants reported treatment success with LLLT compared with 10% (2/20) of participants receiving placebo (risk ratio (RR) 8.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11 to 30.34; absolute risk difference 70%, 95% CI 48% to 92%). No participants in either group reported adverse events.We were uncertain whether PEMF for two weeks improved pain or function more than placebo at two weeks because of the very low quality evidence from one trial (32 participants). Seventy-five per cent (15/20) of participants reported pain relief of 30% or more with PEMF compared with 0% (0/12) of participants receiving placebo (RR 19.19, 95% CI 1.25 to 294.21; absolute risk difference 75%, 95% CI 53% to 97%). Fifty-five per cent (11/20) of participants reported total recovery of joint function with PEMF compared with 0% (0/12) of participants receiving placebo (RR 14.24, 95% CI 0.91 to 221.75; absolute risk difference 55%, 95% CI 31 to 79).Moderate quality evidence from one trial (63 participants) indicated that LLLT plus exercise for eight weeks probably results in greater improvement when measured at the fourth week of treatment, but a similar number of adverse events, compared with placebo plus exercise. The mean pain score at four weeks was 51 points with placebo plus exercise, while with LLLT plus exercise the mean pain score was 32 points on a 100 point scale (mean difference (MD) 19 points, 95% CI 15 to 23; absolute risk difference 19%, 95% CI 15% to 23%). The mean function impairment score was 48 points with placebo plus exercise, while with LLLT plus exercise the mean function impairment score was 36 points on a 100 point scale (MD 12 points, 95% CI 6 to 18; absolute risk difference 12%, 95% CI 6 to 18). Mean active abduction was 70 degrees with placebo plus exercise, while with LLLT plus exercise mean active abduction was 79 degrees (MD 9 degrees, 95% CI 2 to 16; absolute risk difference 5%, 95% CI 1% to 9%). No participants in either group reported adverse events. LLLT's benefits on function were maintained at four months.Based on very low quality evidence from six trials, we were uncertain whether therapeutic ultrasound, PEMF, continuous short wave diathermy, Iodex phonophoresis, a combination of Iodex iontophoresis with continuous short wave diathermy, or a combination of therapeutic ultrasound with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) were effective adjuncts to exercise. Based on low or very low quality evidence from 12 trials, we were uncertain whether a diverse range of electrotherapy modalities (delivered alone or in combination with manual therapy, exercise, or other active interventions) were more or less effective than other active interventions (for example glucocorticoid injection).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based upon low quality evidence from one trial, LLLT for six days may be more effective than placebo in terms of global treatment success at six days. Based upon moderate quality evidence from one trial, LLLT plus exercise for eight weeks may be more effective than exercise alone in terms of pain up to four weeks, and function up to four months. It is unclear whether PEMF is more or less effective than placebo, or whether other electrotherapy modalities are an effective adjunct to exercise. Further high quality randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the benefits and harms of physical therapy interventions (that comprise electrotherapy modalities, manual therapy and exercise, and are reflective of clinical practice) compared to interventions with evidence of benefit (for example glucocorticoid injection or arthrographic joint distension).

Management of acute lateral ankle ligament injury in the athlete

PURPOSE

Inversion injuries involve about 25 % of all injuries of the musculoskeletal system and about 50 % of these injuries are sport-related. This article reviews the acute lateral ankle injuries with special emphasis on a rationale for treatment of these injuries in athletes.

METHODS

A narrative review was performed using Pubmed/Medline, Ovid and Embase using key words: ankle ligaments, injury, lateral ligament, ankle sprain and athlete. Articles related to the topic were included and reviewed.

RESULTS

It is estimated that one inversion injury of the ankle occurs for every 10,000 people each day. Ankle sprains constitute 7-10 % of all admissions to hospital emergency departments. Inversion injuries involve about 25 % of all injuries of the musculoskeletal system, and about 50 % of these injuries are sport-related. The lateral ankle ligament complex consists of three ligaments: the anterior talofibular ligament, the calcaneofibular ligament and the posterior talofibular ligament. The most common trauma mechanism is supination and adduction (inversion) of the plantar-flexed foot.

CONCLUSION

Delayed physical examination provides a more accurate diagnosis. Ultrasound and MRI can be useful in diagnosing associated injury and are routine investigations in professional athletes. Successful treatment of grade II and III acute lateral ankle ligament injuries can be achieved with individualized aggressive, non-operative measures. RICE therapy is the treatment of choice for the first 4-5 days to reduce pain and swelling. Initially, 10-14 days of immobilization in a below the knee cast/brace is beneficial followed by a period in a lace-up brace or functional taping reduces the risk of recurrent injury. Acute repair of the lateral ankle ligaments in grade III injuries in professional athletes may give better results.

Therapeutic ultrasound for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic ultrasound may be offered to people experiencing mild to moderate symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The effectiveness and duration of benefit of this non-surgical intervention remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of therapeutic ultrasound compared with no treatment, placebo or another non-surgical intervention in people with CTS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 27 November 2012, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11 in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2012), CINAHL Plus (January 1937 to November 2012), and AMED (January 1985 to November 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any regimen of therapeutic ultrasound with no treatment, a placebo or another non-surgical intervention in people with CTS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for primary and secondary outcomes. We pooled results of clinically homogenous trials in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model, where possible, to provide estimates of the effect.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies including 414 participants in the review. Two trials compared therapeutic ultrasound with placebo, two compared one ultrasound regimen with another, two compared ultrasound with another non-surgical intervention, and six compared ultrasound as part of a multi-component intervention with another non-surgical intervention (for example, exercises and splint). The risk of bias was low in some studies and unclear or high in other studies, with only two reporting that the allocation sequence was concealed and six reporting that participants were blinded. Overall, there is insufficient evidence that one therapeutic ultrasound regimen is more efficacious than another. Only two studies reported the primary outcome of interest, short-term overall improvement (any measure in which patients indicate the intensity of their complaints compared with baseline, for example, global rating of improvement, satisfaction with treatment, within three months post-treatment). One low quality trial with 68 participants found that when compared with placebo, therapeutic ultrasound may increase the chance of experiencing short-term overall improvement at the end of seven weeks treatment (RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.40 to 3.98), although losses to follow-up and failure to adjust for the correlation between wrists in participants with bilateral CTS in this study suggest that this data should be interpreted with caution. Another low quality trial with 60 participants found that at three months post-treatment therapeutic ultrasound plus splint increased the chance of short-term overall improvement (patient satisfaction) when compared with splint alone (RR 3.02; 95% CI 1.36 to 6.72), but decreased the chance of short-term overall improvement when compared with low-level laser therapy plus splint (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.33), though participants were not blinded to treatment, it was unclear if the random allocation sequence was adequately concealed, and there was a potential unit of analysis error. Differences between groups receiving different frequencies and intensities of ultrasound, and between ultrasound as part of a multi-component intervention versus other non-surgical interventions, were generally small and not statistically significant for symptoms, function, and neurophysiologic parameters. No studies reported any adverse effects of therapeutic ultrasound, but this outcome was only measured in three studies. More adverse effects data are required before any firm conclusions on the safety of therapeutic ultrasound can be made.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only poor quality evidence from very limited data to suggest that therapeutic ultrasound may be more effective than placebo for either short- or long-term symptom improvement in people with CTS. There is insufficient evidence to support the greater benefit of one type of therapeutic ultrasound regimen over another or to support the use of therapeutic ultrasound as a treatment with greater efficacy compared to other non-surgical interventions for CTS, such as splinting, exercises, and oral drugs. More methodologically rigorous studies are needed to determine the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic ultrasound for CTS.

Acupuncture for ankle sprain: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ankle sprain is one of the most frequently encountered musculoskeletal injuries; however, the efficacy of acupuncture in treating ankle sprains remains uncertain. We therefore performed a systematic review to evaluate the evidence regarding acupuncture for ankle sprains.

METHODS

We searched 15 data sources and two trial registries up to February 2012. Randomized controlled trials of acupuncture were included if they involved patients with ankle sprains and reported outcomes of symptom improvement, including pain. A Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used. Risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) was calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed based on acupuncture type, grade of sprain, and control type. Sensitivity analyses were also performed with respect to risk of bias, sample size, and outcomes reported.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials involving 1820 participants were included. Trial quality was generally poor, with just three reporting adequate methods of randomization and only one a method of allocation concealment. Significantly more participants in acupuncture groups reported global symptom improvement compared with no acupuncture groups (RR of symptoms persisting with acupuncture = 0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.77). However, this is probably an overestimate due to the heterogeneity (I2 = 51%) and high risk of bias of the included studies. Acupuncture as an add-on treatment also improved global symptoms compared with other treatments only, without significant variability (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51-0.73, I2 = 1%). The benefit of acupuncture remained significant when the analysis was limited to two studies with a low risk of bias. Acupuncture was more effective than various controls in relieving pain, facilitating return to normal activity, and promoting quality of life, but these analyses were based on only a small number of studies. Acupuncture did not appear to be associated with adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Given methodological shortcomings and the small number of high-quality primary studies, the available evidence is insufficient to recommend acupuncture as an evidence-based treatment option. This calls for further rigorous investigations.

Therapeutic ultrasound for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic ultrasound may be offered to people experiencing mild to moderate symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The effectiveness and duration of benefit of this non-surgical intervention remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of therapeutic ultrasound compared with no treatment, placebo or another non-surgical intervention in people with CTS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (22 February 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to February 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2011), CINAHL Plus (January 1937 to February 2011), and AMED (January 1985 to February 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any regimen of therapeutic ultrasound with no treatment, a placebo or another non-surgical intervention in people with CTS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for primary and secondary outcomes. We pooled results of clinically homogenous trials in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model, where possible, to provide estimates of the effect.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies randomising 443 patients in the review. Two trials compared therapeutic ultrasound with placebo, two compared one ultrasound regimen with another, two compared ultrasound with another non-surgical intervention, and six compared ultrasound as part of a multi-component intervention with another non-surgical intervention (for example, exercises and splint). The risk of bias was low in some studies and unclear or high in other studies, with only three reporting that the allocation sequence was concealed and six reporting that participants were blinded. Overall, there is insufficient evidence that one therapeutic ultrasound regimen is more efficacious than another. Only two studies reported the primary outcome of interest, short-term overall improvement (any measure in which patients indicate the intensity of their complaints compared with baseline, for example, global rating of improvement, satisfaction with treatment, within three months post-treatment). One low quality trial with 68 participants found that when compared with placebo, therapeutic ultrasound may increase the chance of experiencing short-term overall improvement at the end of seven weeks treatment (RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.40 to 3.98), although losses to follow-up in this study suggest that these data should be interpreted with caution. Another low quality trial with 60 participants found that at three months, post-treatment therapeutic ultrasound plus splint increased the chance of short-term overall improvement (patient satisfaction) when compared with splint alone (RR 3.02; 95% CI 1.36 to 6.72), but decreased the chance of short-term overall improvement when compared with low-level laser therapy plus splint (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.33), though participants were not blinded to treatment and it was unclear if the random allocation sequence was adequately concealed. Differences between groups receiving different frequencies and intensities of ultrasound, and between ultrasound as part of a multi-component intervention versus other non-surgical interventions, were generally small and not statistically significant for symptoms, function, and neurophysiologic parameters. Only four studies measured adverse effects, none of which identified adverse effects due to therapeutic ultrasound. However, more data on this outcome are required before any firm conclusions on the safety of this intervention can be made.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only poor quality evidence from very limited data to suggest that therapeutic ultrasound may be more effective than placebo for either short- or long-term symptom improvement in people with CTS. There is insufficient evidence to support the greater benefit of one type of therapeutic ultrasound regimen over another or to support the use of therapeutic ultrasound as a treatment with greater efficacy compared to other non-surgical interventions for CTS, such as splinting, exercises, and oral drugs. More methodologically rigorous studies are needed to determine the effectiveness and safety of this intervention for CTS.