Utility of Prolotherapy for Upper Extremity Pathology

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.

Effects of splinting and three injection therapies (corticosteroid, autologous blood and prolotherapy) on pain, grip strength, and functionality in patients with lateral epicondylitis

Objectives

This study aims to compare the efficacy of the wrist splint and the injection of corticosteroid, autologous blood, and hypertonic dextrose in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (LE).

Patients and methods

A total of 120 patients (43 males, 77 females; mean age: 45.7±7.7 years; range, 18 to 65 years) diagnosed with LE between December 2013 and June 2015 were included in the study and randomized into four groups. The first group was administered 20 mg methylprednisolone acetate + 2 mL 2% prilocaine, the second group 2 mL venous blood + 0.5 mL prilocaine, and the third group 2 mL 30% dextrose + 0.5 mL prilocaine injections. A second injection was administered to the third group one month later. The fourth group was recommended to use only a wrist splint. Pre-treatment and post-treatment evaluations of the patients were carried out at one and six months by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) in terms of pain, by Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) questionnaire in terms of functional level, and by the Jamar dynamometer in terms of grip strength.

Results

In all groups, VAS values at one and six months after treatment were found to be lower in comparison to baseline. Except for the splint group, a significant improvement was observed in all three injection groups in terms of grip strength and PRTEE values at six months compared to the baseline values. In the comparison of the groups, no significant difference was observed in terms of improvement in VAS scores and grip strength. While corticosteroid injection was significantly effective in terms of PRTEE pain, function, and total scores only at one month, the autologous injection was effective in terms of PRTEE function and total scores at only six months after treatment. There were no significant differences for splint and prolotherapy groups in terms of PRTEE scores.

Conclusion

Corticosteroid injection, autologous blood injection, and prolotherapy are effective and safe long-term methods in LE treatment.

Regenerative Injectable Therapies: Current Evidence

Regenerative medicine is a growing field of musculoskeletal treatments that focuses on amplifying the body's natural healing properties to improve function and pain after injury. Regenerative treatments are applied locally at the site of injury and work though different mechanisms, some of which are unexplained at this time. Current evidence demonstrates benefit for certain regenerative treatments, but further standardization of treatments and additional studies are required to provide additional data to support specific regenerative treatments. This review seeks to explore the evidence and discuss appropriate use of the most common regenerative treatments including platelet-rich plasma, prolotherapy, autologous mesenchymal stem cells, human-derived allograft products, and saline.

Is Dextrose Prolotherapy Superior To Corticosteroid Injection In Patients With Chronic Lateral Epicondylitis?: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of dextrose prolotherapy versus steroid injection in the treatment of patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis.

Methods

Thirty subjects with chronic lateral epicondylitis were randomly assigned into two groups of hypertonic dextrose or methylprednisolone injection. Participants were assessed through Quick DASH and VAS scores, once before injection, and then after 1- and 3-months follow-up. Two patients were excluded due to not completing the follow-up timepoints.

Results

In both groups VAS scores revealed significant improvement during the first month follow-up [mean difference (MD) = 1.9±3.3, versus 1.5±1.9 for the prolotherapy and steroid groups, respectively]. This declining trajectory continued at the third month visit in the prolotherapy group and MD reached 4.4±2.9, while it did not change remarkably in the steroid group (MD=1.9±3.4). In fact, comparing VAS scores between the 1st- and 3rd-month time points did not reveal a significant improvement in the steroid group (p=0.6). Also, the Quick DASH index showed a similar pattern and improved remarkably in both groups during the first visit. However, only the efficacy in the prolotherapy group persisted after 3-month follow-up (MD = 9.5±21.6, p=0.044). One month after injections no preference between the two interventions was observed (p=0.74 for VAS and 0.14 for Quick DASH score). However, the 3rd-month follow-up revealed a meaningful superiority (p=0.03 for VAS and p=0.01 for Quick DASH score) favoring the prolotherapy method.

Conclusion

Both methods were proven to be effective in the short-term treatment of chronic lateral epicondylitis, but dextrose prolotherapy seems to be slightly more efficacious than steroid injection over a longer period.Clinical trial registration: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials Database: IRCT20170311033000N3.

A rare case of Haemophilus parainfluenzae septic knee following prolotherapy injections

Prolotherapy injections are becoming increasingly popular as a non-surgical treatment option for many chronic musculoskeletal conditions. Proposed benefits include reduced pain, reduced joint laxity and increased tendon strength. While a number of studies report that prolotherapy reduces pain and increases function for many conditions, the academic evidence remains extremely weak. Here, we discuss a case of a complex intra-articular knee infection in a young, previously healthy, female following prolotherapy injections for management of a partial-thickness anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of its kind describing a potential complication of intra-articular prolotherapy injections.