Steroid injection for lateral epicondylitis

Autologous blood and platelet-rich plasma injection therapy for lateral elbow pain

BACKGROUND

Autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are commonly used to treat lateral elbow pain (also known as tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis or epicondylalgia). Based on animal models and observational studies, these injections may modulate tendon injury healing, but randomised controlled trials have reported inconsistent results regarding benefit for people with lateral elbow pain.

OBJECTIVES

To review current evidence on the benefit and safety of autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection for treatment of people with lateral elbow pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for published trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal for ongoing trials, on 18 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing autologous whole blood or PRP injection therapy to another therapy (placebo or active treatment, including non-pharmacological therapies, and comparison between PRP and autologous blood) for lateral elbow pain. The primary comparison was PRP versus placebo. Major outcomes were pain relief (≥ 30% or ≥ 50%), mean pain, mean function, treatment success, quality of life, withdrawal due to adverse events, and adverse events; the primary time point was three months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies with 2337 participants; 56% of participants were female, mean age varied between 36 and 53 years, and mean duration of symptoms ranged from 1 to 22 months. Seven trials had three intervention arms. Ten trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to placebo injection (primary comparison). Fifteen trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to glucocorticoid injection. Four studies compared autologous blood to PRP. Two trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection plus tennis elbow strap and exercise versus tennis elbow strap and exercise alone. Two trials compared PRP injection to surgery, and one trial compared PRP injection and dry needling to dry needling alone. Other comparisons include autologous blood versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy; PRP versus arthroscopic surgery; PRP versus laser; and autologous blood versus polidocanol. Most studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection biases, mainly due to inadequate allocation concealment and lack of participant blinding. We found moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) to show that autologous blood or PRP injection probably does not provide clinically significant improvement in pain or function compared with placebo injection at three months. Further, low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggests that PRP may not increase risk for adverse events. We are uncertain whether autologous blood or PRP injection improves treatment success (downgraded for bias, imprecision, and indirectness) or withdrawals due to adverse events (downgraded for bias and twice for imprecision). No studies measured health-related quality of life, and no studies reported pain relief (> 30% or 50%) at three months. At three months, mean pain was 3.7 points (0 to 10; 0 is best) with placebo and 0.16 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 better to 0.29 worse; 8 studies, 523 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute improvement of 1.6% better (6% better to 3% worse). At three months, mean function was 27.5 points (0 to 100; 0 is best) with placebo and 1.86 points better (95% CI 4.9 better to 1.25 worse; 8 studies, 502 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute benefit of 1.9% (5% better to 1% worse), and treatment success was 121 out of 185 (65%) with placebo versus 125 out of 187 (67%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 4 studies, 372 participants), for absolute improvement of 0% (11.1% lower to 12.4% higher). Regarding harm, we found very low-certainty evidence to suggest that we are uncertain whether withdrawal rates due to adverse events differed. Low-certainty evidence suggests that autologous blood or PRP injection may not increase adverse events compared with placebo injection. Withdrawal due to adverse events occurred in 3 out of 39 (8%) participants treated with placebo versus 1 out of 41 (2%) treated with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.92; 1 study), for an absolute difference of 5.2% fewer (7.5% fewer to 14.8% more). Adverse event rates were 35 out of 208 (17%) with placebo versus 41 out of 217 (19%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.72; 5 studies; 425 participants), for an absolute difference of 2.4% more (4% fewer to 12% more). At six and twelve months, no clinically important benefit for mean pain or function was observed with autologous blood or PRP injection compared with placebo injection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data in this review do not support the use of autologous blood or PRP injection for treatment of lateral elbow pain. These injections probably provide little or no clinically important benefit for pain or function (moderate-certainty evidence), and it is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence) whether they improve treatment success and pain relief > 50%, or increase withdrawal due to adverse events. Although risk for harm may not be increased compared with placebo injection (low-certainty evidence), injection therapies cause pain and carry a small risk of infection. With no evidence of benefit, the costs and risks are not justified.

Factors associated with failure of nonoperative treatment in lateral epicondylitis

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis is a common cause of elbow pain that is treated with a variety of nonoperative measures and often improves with time. Minimal research is available on patients in whom these nonoperative treatments fail.

PURPOSE

To identify baseline patient and disease factors associated with the failure of nonoperative treatment of lateral epicondylitis, defined as surgery after a period of nonoperative treatment.

STUDY DESIGN

Case control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 580 patients treated for lateral epicondylitis at a tertiary center between 2007 and 2012 were analyzed. Disease-specific and patient demographic characteristics were compared between patient groups (nonoperative vs surgical treatment). A multivariable logistic regression model was created based on preliminary univariate testing to determine which characteristics were associated with failure of nonoperative treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 580 patients, 92 (16%) underwent surgical treatment at a mean of 6 months (range, 0-31 months) from their initial visit. Univariate analysis demonstrated a potential association (P < .10) between operative management and the following factors at initial diagnosis: increased age, body mass index, duration of symptoms, presence of radial tunnel syndrome, prior injection, physical therapy, splinting, smoking, workers' compensation, a labor occupation, use of narcotics, use of antidepressant medications, and previous orthopaedic surgery. In the final multivariable model, a workers' compensation claim (odds ratio [OR], 8.1), prior injection (OR, 5.6), the presence of radial tunnel syndrome (OR, 3.1), previous orthopaedic surgery (OR, 3.2), and duration of symptoms >12 months (OR, 2.5) remained significant independent predictors of surgical treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study identifies risk factors for surgical treatment for lateral epicondylitis. While these findings do not provide information regarding causal factors associated with surgery, these patient and disease-specific considerations may be helpful when counseling patients regarding treatment options and the likelihood of the success of continued nonoperative treatment.

Hypertonic dextrose and morrhuate sodium injections (prolotherapy) for lateral epicondylosis (tennis elbow): results of a single-blind, pilot-level, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Chronic lateral epicondylosis is common, debilitating, and often refractory. Prolotherapy (PrT) is an injection therapy for tendinopathy. The efficacy of two PrT solutions for chronic lateral epicondylosis was evaluated.

DESIGN

This study is a three-arm randomized controlled trial. Twenty-six adults (32 elbows) with chronic lateral epicondylosis for 3 mos or longer were randomized to ultrasound-guided PrT with dextrose solution, ultrasound-guided PrT with dextrose-morrhuate sodium solution, or watchful waiting ("wait and see"). The primary outcome was the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (100 points) at 4, 8, and 16 wks (all groups) and at 32 wks (PrT groups). The secondary outcomes included pain-free grip strength and magnetic resonance imaging severity score.

RESULTS

The participants receiving PrT with dextrose and PrT with dextrose-morrhuate reported improved Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation composite and subscale scores at 4, 8, and/or 16 wks compared with those in the wait-and-see group (P < 0.05). At 16 wks, compared with baseline, the PrT with dextrose and PrT with dextrose-morrhuate groups reported improved composite Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation scores by a mean (SE) of 18.7 (9.6; 41.1%) and 17.5 (11.6; 53.5%) points, respectively. The grip strength of the participants receiving PrT with dextrose exceeded that of the PrT with dextrose-morrhuate and the wait and see at 8 and 16 wks (P < 0.05). There were no differences in magnetic resonance imaging scores. Satisfaction was high; there were no adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

PrT resulted in safe, significant improvement of elbow pain and function compared with baseline status and follow-up data and the wait-and-see control group. This pilot study suggests the need for a definitive trial.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Randomized prospective evaluation of injection techniques for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis

Lateral epicondylitis is a commonly made diagnosis for general practitioners and orthopedic surgeons. Corticosteroid injection is a mainstay of early treatment. However, conflicting evidence exists to support the use of steroid injection, and no evidence in the literature supports an injection technique. Nineteen patients diagnosed with acute lateral epicondylitis were evaluated to compare the peppered- and single-injection techniques using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, visual analog score (VAS), and grip strength. For elbows with a single injection, mean grip strength increased from 22.9 to 27.8 (P=.053), mean VAS pain score decreased from 4.8 to 3.6 (P=.604), and mean DASH score decreased from 2.6 to 1.8 points (P=.026). For elbows with peppered injections, mean grip strength increased from 28.7 to 32.8 (P=.336), mean VAS pain scores decreased from 3.7 to 2.3 (P=.386), and mean DASH score decreased from 2.6 to 1.3 (P=.008).No studies have directly compared the peppered-injection technique to the single-injection technique. Our results suggest that patient outcome is improved with the single injection. The biomechanical or chemical reason for the distinction is yet unknown, but we postulate that the peppered technique may actually further damage the already compromised tendon. The theory that the peppered injection stimulates blood flow may be overestimated or false. Histochemical studies of the pathologic tissue must be performed to further delineate the reason for improved outcomes with the single-injection technique.