Growth factor-based therapies provide additional benefit beyond physical therapy in resistant elbow tendinopathy: a prospective, single-blind, randomised trial of autologous blood injections versus platelet-rich plasma injections

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.

Trends in utilization, demographics, and costs of platelet-rich plasma injections: a ten-year nationwide investigation

INTRODUCTION

Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) has become one of the most popular biologic treatments in orthopedic surgery. Despite this, its utilization over the last decade has not been investigated.

METHODS

We conducted a search using Current Procedural Terminology codes to identify patients who received PRP injections between 2010 and 2019 using the PearlDiver database. The purpose was to 1) determine annual trends of PRP injections of the ankle, hip, knee, shoulder, and elbow for cartilaginous, tendinous, ligamentous, meniscal/labral, and miscellaneous pathologies; 2) compare baseline demographics of patients receiving these injections; and 3) analyze costs.

RESULTS

A total of 23,716 patients who received PRP injections were identified; 54.4% were female. The incidence of PRP injections was between 1.6 and 4.3 per 100,000 orthopedic patients. The most common anatomic locations targeted for PRP therapy was the knee (36.7%), followed by the shoulder/elbow (30.5%), then the ankle (19.6%) and hip (13.6%). Subgroup analysis revealed that most common use of PRP was for knee cartilaginous pathologies, followed by shoulder/elbow tendinous pathologies. The number of injections used in the knee significantly increased between 2010 and 2019 (p< 0.001), and trended toward significantly increasing in the shoulder/elbow (p = 0.055). Average annual costs for PRP injections ranged from $711.65 for ankles and $1,711.63 for hips; costs significantly changed for 3 of the 4 anatomic locations. By 2019, average PRP injection costs for each area clustered around $1000.

CONCLUSION

Between 2010 and 2019, there was an increase in usage of PRP injections in the knee (cartilaginous pathologies) and the shoulder/elbow (tendinous pathologies). PRP costs demonstrated early variability but clustered around $1000 by 2019. Further studies into drivers of prices and cost-effectiveness of PRP are needed to provide clarity into the true costs to patients and healthcare providers.

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.

Ultrasound-Guided Injection of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma for Refractory Lateral Epicondylitis of Humerus: Case Series

Refractory lateral epicondylitis (RLE) is a tendinopathy of the elbow with less effective conservation treatment. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a new treatment option for RLE because of its repair-promoting effect on tissues. Although evidence demonstrates the efficacy of PRP in treating tendinopathies, the therapeutic utility of ultrasound-guided PRP injection for RLE is unknown. Here, we report two cases of RLE treated with PRP. The first patient was a 78-year-old man who received an unknown dose of local glucocorticoid injection at the local community clinic in June 2016. His pain recurred after exertion. The second patient was a 54-year-old woman who received a glucocorticoid injection (0.5 mL of compound betamethasone and 1.5 mL of 0.9% normal saline) in October 2020. Her pain could not be relieved. A physician diagnosed patients with RLE based on their medical history, symptoms, and clinical signs. The doctor injected PRP (the first patient in November 2020, the second in March 2021) under ultrasound guidance into the patient's attachment point of the extensor tendon at the lateral humeral epicondyle. The doctor evaluated the effectiveness of the treatment by ultrasonography, visual analogue scale, and the patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation. After four weeks of treatment, the pain was relieved, and functions continued to improve in the following three months. Moreover, the ultrasonography showed that the damaged tendons were repaired. Together, we demonstrate that ultrasound-guided PRP injection could considerably relieve pain, improve elbow joint functions in patients with RLE, and provide visible evidence that PRP repairs tendon damage.

Repeated magnetic resonance imaging at 6 follow-up visits over a 2-year period after platelet-rich plasma injection in patients with lateral epicondylitis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for lateral epicondylitis has been demonstrated. However, the healing process monitored by repeated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate sequential changes using MRI in patients with lateral epicondylitis treated by PRP injection at 6 follow-up visits over a 2-year period.

METHODS

Thirty patients who underwent PRP treatment for lateral epicondylitis and sequential MRI evaluation were prospectively enrolled. The MRI scores (ranging from 0 to 3) and clinical scores, including the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) score, were measured at baseline (before treatment) and 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the procedure. Sequential changes in the MRI scores and clinical scores during the treatment period were evaluated. In addition, the associations between MRI scores and clinical scores were assessed.

RESULTS

The mean MRI score at baseline was 2.30, and the mean MRI scores at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the procedure were 1.97, 1.77, 1.13, 0.73, 0.60, and 0.33, respectively. Significant improvements in the MRI scores occurred by 3 months and continued over a period of 24 months. Regarding the clinical scores, the mean VAS pain scores were 72 at baseline, 48 at 1 month, 34 at 3 months, 28 at 6 months, 15 at 12 months, 14 at 18 months, and 11 at 24 months and the mean PRTEE scores were 56, 36, 26, 18, 8, 9, and 6, respectively. Significant improvements in the VAS pain score and PRTEE score occurred by 1 month and continued over a period of 12 months. There was little association between the MRI scores and clinical scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous tendon recovery assessed by MRI was found during a 2-year period after PRP treatment. Improvements in the MRI scores followed and continued longer than improvements assessed by the clinical scores.

The use of platelet-rich plasma therapy in treating tennis elbow: A critical review of randomised control trials

Tennis elbow (TE) is a painful and debilitating condition of the elbow. Recently, the use of orthobiologics, such as platelet-rich-plasma (PRP), has been proposed to promote tendon regeneration. Despite their popularity, there is a paucity of updated reviews on the use of PRP compared with other treatment modalities for treating TE. The aim of this review is to summarise high quality studies that compare the use of PRP therapy with other therapies for TE and to identify areas where further research is warranted. This systematic review was performed in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases was undertaken in May 2021. Articles were screened for the following criteria: randomised control trials (RCTs) involving PRP in at least one of the treatment arms for tennis elbow. The quality of the RCTs included were analysed for their risk of bias using the modified Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for randomised trials. A total of 20 RCTs of which 1520 TE patients were analysed. The RCTs included in this review compared PRP with various treatment modalities routinely used in clinical practice such as physiotherapy, steroid injections, Autologous Whole Blood (AWB) and surgical interventions. With regards to the quality of RCTs, collectively, selection bias was found to be low risk however, performance bias in terms of blinding of participants and personnel performed poorly. Of the 20 RCTs, only 5 studies were classified as low risk of bias. In these 5 studies, 2 RCTs compared PRP with steroids and reported contrasting results, 1 RCT compared PRP with AWB injections which reported both to be similarly efficacious, 3 RCTs included a placebo group and only 1 reported superior effects with PRP. There are 2 main types of PRP classified according to the number of pro-inflammatory leukocyte i.e. leukocyte-rich and leukocyte-poor PRP. However, only 8 studies documented the formulation of PRP used. While the heterogeneity of PRP formulations could in-part explain the reported differences in outcomes, overall there is limited robust evidence to recommend PRP therapy for TE. Further research is required to establish the optimal formulation and administration of PRP injections. Proper documentation of TE patients need to be standardised before concrete recommendations on the use of PRP therapy may be offered.

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.

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.

Assessment of Characteristics and Methodological Quality of the Top 50 Most Cited Articles on Platelet-Rich Plasma in Musculoskeletal Medicine

Background:

The wide range of clinical applications and controversial scientific evidence associated with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy in musculoskeletal medicine requires an examination of the most commonly cited studies within this field.

Purpose:

To identify the 50 most cited articles on PRP, assess their study design, and determine any correlations between the number of citations and level of evidence (LoE) or methodological quality.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study.

Methods:

The Web of Science database was queried to identify the top 50 most cited articles on PRP in orthopaedic surgery. Bibliometric characteristics, number of citations, and LoE were recorded. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS), and Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO). The Pearson correlation coefficient and Spearman correlation coefficient (r_S) were used to determine the degree of correlation between the number of citations or citation density and LoE, MCMS, MINORS score, and MIBO score. Student t tests were performed for 2-group comparisons.

Results:

The top 50 articles were published between 2005 and 2016 in 21 journals. The mean number of citations and citation density were 241 ± 94 (range, 151-625) and 23 ± 8, respectively, and the mean LoE was 2.44 ± 1.67, with 15 studies classified as LoE 1. The mean MCMS, MINORS score, and MIBO score were 66.9 ± 12.6, 16 ± 4.7, and 12.4 ± 3.7, respectively. No correlation was observed between the number of citations or citation density and LoE, MCMS, MINORS score, and MIBO score. A significant difference (P = .02) was noted in LoE in articles from the United States (3.56 ± 1.7) versus outside the United States (2 ± 1.5). Seven of the 8 in vivo studies were published between 2005 and 2010, whereas 19 of the 25 clinical outcome investigations were published between 2011 and 2016. Studies that were published more recently were found to significantly correlate with number of citations (r_S = –0.38; P = .01), citation density (r_S = 0.36; P = .01), and higher LoE (r_S = 0.47; P = .01).

Conclusion:

The top 50 most cited articles on PRP consisted of high LoE and fair methodological quality. There was a temporal shift in research from in vivo animal studies toward investigations focused on clinical outcomes.

Bibliometric analysis of the top 50 highly cited articles on platelet-rich plasma in osteoarthritis and tendinopathy

The primary goal of this study was to compile the top 50 most cited articles on the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP). A search of relevant studies was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines in Web of Science. The top 25 most cited articles in osteoarthritis and tendinopathy were then compiled and evaluated. Level 1 evidence articles constituted the majority of the studies (64%) and were more likely to have a higher citation density. Altmetric data was highest for level 1 systematic reviews. Of the articles that report a positive outcome for PRP, 13% (2/16) had low risk of bias. This study defines the most cited and influential publications regarding PRP to further research in this area.

Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guidelines on the management of lateral epicondylitis of the humerus - Secondary publication

BACKGROUND

The guidelines presented herein provide recommendations for the management of patients with lateral epicondylitis of the humerus. These recommendations are endorsed by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) and Japan Elbow Society.

METHODS

The JOA lateral epicondylitis guideline committee revised the previous guidelines on the basis of the "Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014", which emphasized the importance of the balance between benefit and harm, and proposed a desirable method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan. These guidelines consist of 11 clinical questions (CQs), 9 background questions (BQs), and 3 future research questions (FRQs). For each CQ, outcomes from the literature were collected and evaluated systematically according to the adopted study design.

RESULTS

The committee proposed recommendations for each CQ by determining the level of evidence and assessing the consensus rate. Physical therapy was the best recommendation with the best evidence. The BQs and FRQs were answered by collecting evidence based on the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines presented herein were reviewed systematically, and recommendations were proposed for each CQ. These guidelines are expected to be widely used not only by surgeons or physicians but also by other healthcare providers, such as nurses, therapists, and athletic trainers.

Lateral epicondylitis: New trends and challenges in treatment

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a chronic aseptic inflammatory condition caused by repetitive microtrauma and excessive overload of the extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle. This is the most common cause of musculoskeletal pain syndrome in the elbow, inducing significant pain and limitation of the function of the upper limb. It affects approximately 1-3% of the population and is frequently seen in racquet sports and sports associated with functional overload of the elbow, such as tennis, squash, gymnastics, acrobatics, fitness, and weight lifting. Typewriters, artists, musicians, electricians, mechanics, and other professions requiring frequent repetitive movements in the elbow and wrists are also affected. LE is a leading causation for absence from work and lower sport results in athletes. The treatment includes a variety of conservative measures, but if those fail, surgery is indicated. This review summarizes the knowledge about this disease, focusing on risk factors, expected course, prognosis, and conservative and surgical treatment approaches.

Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Based on Achievement of Minimal Clinically Important Difference

Background:

The effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis remains debatable.

Purpose:

To evaluate the effectiveness of PRP in lateral epicondylitis treatment using minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values as a reference and to investigate if leukocyte content can influence the effectiveness of the therapy.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, the authors searched the Medline and Scopus databases for studies on lateral epicondylitis and PRP therapy that used the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): visual analog scale (VAS) for pain; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH); Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE); and Mayo Clinic Performance Index (MAYO). The weighted arithmetic means for the PROMs were calculated at baseline (week 0) and follow-up weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 52, and 104. The mean differences in outcomes (ΔVAS, ΔDASH, ΔPRTEE, and ΔMAYO) were compared with the MCID values at each follow-up point. In addition, the effectiveness of leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) versus leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) was also compared. The Student t test was used in all analyses.

Results:

A total of 26 studies were included in the analysis. After PRP injection, all PROM scores improved with time. The scores improved significantly from baseline to each follow-up time ( P < .0001), with the exception of the PRTEE (no significant difference at follow-up weeks 12 and 52). The mean difference in scores from baseline exceeded the respective MCIDs from weeks 4 to 104 for the VAS and DASH, from weeks 4 to 52 for the MAYO, and from weeks 8 to 52 for the PRTEE. The MCID for each of the PROMs was exceeded at almost every observation period in both the LR-PRP and the LP-PRP systems.

Conclusion:

Based on comparisons with the MCID values of commonly used outcome scores, PRP seems to be an effective form of treatment for lateral epicondylitis. Both the LR- PRP and the LP- PRP systems were effective in the context of meeting the MCID.

Cell-based therapy of the elbow: evidence for lateral tendinopathy-a review on current treatments

PURPOSE

Cell-based therapies are on the rise in treating intra and extraarticular pathologies, trying to avoid surgical intervention and support local repair processes. Therefore, the aim was to summarize current evidence-based treatment options for a cell-based therapy around the elbow.

METHODS

Through a literature review up-to date treatment algorithms and therapies have been identified and have been rated according to their evidence level for clinical recommendation.

RESULTS

Regarding the four extraarticular anatomical regions of the elbow (anterior, medial, posterior and lateral) and the joint itself, the lateral elbow and its´ tendinopathies as well as the use of cell-based treatment options have been extensively studied and, therefore, allow for clear and evidence-based recommendations. The remaining three regions as wells as the intraarticular application do not show enough evidence for a clinical recommendation.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion the cell-based approach for treating elbow pathologies can only be recommended for the lateral elbow, as there has been shown sufficient evidence for the extraarticular application. It has to be mentioned, that the results from the lateral elbow maybe transferred to other extra-articular tendinopathies, as the lack of evidence may be due to the rare appearance of posterior, medial and anterior tendon affection. No recommendation can be given for intra-articular use.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Platelet-rich plasma therapy ensures pain reduction in the management of lateral epicondylitis - a PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Analyze the effectiveness of PRP therapy in comparison to other available treatments in the management of lateral epicondylitis (LE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted electronic database searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until June 2021 for RCTs analyzing the efficacy of PRP in the management of LE. VAS for pain, DASH score, and PRETEE score were the outcomes analyzed. The analysis was performed in R-platform using MetaInsight and interventions were ranked based on p-score approach. Cochrane's CINeMA approach was used for quality appraisal.

RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs with 2040 patients were included in the network analysis. Compared to saline control, only leukocyte-rich-PRP resulted in significant pain relief (WMD=-14.8,95% CI [-23.18,-6.39];low confidence) compared to steroid, local anesthetic, laser, and surgery. On analyzing DASH scores and PRETEE scores, none of the above-mentioned treatment methods were superior to saline control. In subgroup analysis, leucocyte-rich-PRP resulted in clinically significant improvement. Leucocyte-rich-PRP seems more promising with p-score of 0.415.

CONCLUSION

PRP therapy offers significant pain relief compared to saline control in the management of LE without similar improvement in functional outcome. With available low-quality evidence, PRP was the most promising therapy that needs further exploration to explore its usefulness in lateral epicondylitis.

Feasibility of Growth Factor Agent Therapy in Repairing Motor Injury

Growth factors (GF), with the activity of stimulating cell growth, play a significant role in biology, medicine, and exercise physiology. In the process of exercise, human tissues are impacted, making cells suffer damage. Growth factor can accelerate the repair of damaged cells and regulate the synthesis of protein, so biological preparations of growth factors can be added to traditional therapies. A combination of growth factor biologics and conventional therapies may improve the efficiency of injury repair, but growth factor biologics may not produce any results. The feasibility of growth factor biologics in the treatment of motor injury was discussed. The research have shown that: 1) GF biological agent therapy is a very promising treatment for motor injury, which is based on the power of autologous growth factor (GFs) to accelerate tissue healing, promote muscle regeneration, increase angiogenesis, reduce fibrosis, and make the muscle injury rapid recovery. 2) There are various methods for delivering the higher dose of GF to the injured tissue, but most of them depend on the platelet release of GF. At the site of injury, there are several ways to deliver higher doses of GF to the injured tissue. 3) At present, the inhibition of GF is mainly through signal transduction inhibitors and inhibition of transcription factor production. 4) Pattern of GF during wound repair: GF directly regulates many key steps of normal wound repair, including inflammatory cell chemotaxis, division and proliferation of fibroblasts, keratinocytes and vascular endothelial cells, formation of new blood vessels, and synthesis and degradation of intercellular substances. 5) When GF promotes chronic wound healing, in most cases, certain GF can be used targeted only when in vivo regulation still cannot meet the need for repair.

Hyaluronic acid injections for chronic tennis elbow

Background

For most patients, tennis elbow (TE) resolves within 6 months of onset. For those with persistent and painful TE, nonsurgical treatment options are limited. Thousands of studies have tried to find effective treatments for TE but have usually failed. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that injections with hyaluronic acid (HA) would be effective at reducing pain from chronic TE.

Methods

Patients with a minimum of six months of pain from TE and with a pain level of 50 or greater (out of 100) were included in the study. They were randomized equally into one of two treatment groups: injection with HA or injection with saline control. Follow-up was conducted at 3, 6 and 12 months from the initial injection. Both the patient and the examiner at the follow-up visits were blinded to the treatment arm. The primary outcome measure was the visual analog scale (VAS pain) score at one year. Additional outcome measures included the shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) and Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) scores.

Results

Eighteen patients were randomized into the HA injection treatment arm, and 17 (94%) completed the study. The average age was 51.9 years, and 10 of the subjects were male. Patients had an average of 28.1 months of pain before entering the study. The VAS score in the HA group decreased from a baseline of 76.4–14.3 at 12 months. All 17 patients in the HA group showed VAS score reductions above the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of at least 18. The PRTEE score improved from 67 to 28.1. The QuickDASH score improved from 53.7 to 22.5. Follow-up in the saline group was less than 50% and was therefore not used as a comparator.

Conclusions

HA injections yielded significant success in pain relief by three months. Patients continued to improve for the 12-month duration of the study. This study indicates that patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis may benefit from receiving injections of hyaluronic acid rather than having to undergo surgery.

Orthobiologics: Diagnosis and Treatment of Common Tendinopathies

Orthobiologics, including platelet-rich plasma, prolotherapy, and mesenchymal stem cells, are seeing increasing use in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), muscle injury, and tendinopathy. This article reviews the biology and applications of orthobiologics in tendons, muscles, and joints, and focuses on platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Clinical evidence-based literature related to the use of PRP in the treatment of rotator cuff injury, lateral epicondylosis, Achilles tendinopathy, plantar fasciitis, knee OA, and acute muscle injury are discussed.

Even experts cannot agree on the optimal use of platelet-rich plasma in lateral elbow tendinopathy: an international Delphi study

Background

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is widely used in the management of lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) despite conflicting evidence on its effectiveness. With high levels of user experience, this study aimed to assess consensus amongst experts on its clinical use.

Methods

A three-round international Delphi study was conducted. Participants were invited through national society mailing lists and contact lists derived from a systematic search of the literature on PRP. In round one, a primary working group developed 40 statements on PRP preparation and clinical application. In rounds two and three, an international group of researchers on PRP and clinical users of the device scored their levels of agreement with the statements on a five-point scale. Consensus was defined as an interquartile range of ≤ 1.

Results

Consensus of agreement was only reached for 17/40 (42.5%) statements. For statements on PRP formulation, consensus of agreement was reached in 2/6 statements (33%). Only limited consensus on the contraindications, delivery strategy and delivery technique was achieved.

Conclusion

Experts reached very limited consensus on the use of PRP in LET. High levels of user experience have not resulted in a convergence of opinion on the technical components of PRP formulation and delivery, substantiating the need for further studies and improved trial reporting.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10195-021-00608-5.

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.

The Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Improving Pain and Function in Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis with Risk-of-Bias Assessment

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for lateral epicondylitis and evaluate its impact on pain and functional outcomes.

METHODS

This study followed Preferred Reporting Items and Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in September 2019 and repeated in April 2020 using electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. Baseline and 3-, 6-, and 12-month data were extracted for visual analog scale (VAS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), and modified Mayo Clinic performance index for the elbow (MAYO) scores. Only level 1 studies with patients who had not undergone surgery were included. Outcomes data, study design, demographic variables, PRP formulation, and comparator treatments were recorded. Statistical analyses of pooled weighted mean differences (WMDs) were performed and compared with estimated minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values. The Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) was used to assess methodological quality, and the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment was performed.

RESULTS

This review included 16 level I studies, 9 of which (581 total patients, 281 receiving single injections of PRP) were quantitatively analyzed. The average age was 41.5 years, 56.8% of patients were female, and mean follow-up was 7.5 months. The mean CMS was 78.94 ± 12.74 (range 59 to 97), and 5 of 16 studies were at low risk for bias. Patients who received PRP had significantly improved VAS scores at 3 months (WMD -0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.03, -0.66; P < .01) and 6 months (WMD -0.74; 95% CI -0.98, -0.50; P < .01) compared with those who received autologous whole blood, though MAYO scores were statistically equivalent. Comparing PRP to corticosteroids, VAS and DASH scores were not significantly different at 3 months, although PRP was superior at 6 months for VAS (WMD -1.70; 95% CI -2.65, -0.75; P < .01) and DASH (WMD -6.23; 95% CI -10.78, -1.69; P < .01). Most differences in VAS and DASH scores exceeded the 5% absolute difference estimate for their respective MCIDs but fell short of the 10% estimate.

CONCLUSION

Considering the small number of comparable studies, lack of quantification of specific PRP content, considerable heterogeneity between randomized control trials, and most effect sizes being equivocal within the framework of 2 estimated MCID values, the authors can neither scientifically support nor discourage the usage of PRP for lateral epicondylitis despite finding statistically significant improvements in pain and functional outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I, prognostic.

Comparative analysis of leucocyte poor vs leucocyte rich platelet-rich plasma in the management of lateral epicondylitis: Systematic review & meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review & Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to comparatively analyse the efficacy and safety of using leucocyte-poor platelet rich plasma (LP-PRP) against leucocyte-rich platelet rich plasma (LR-PRP) in the management of lateral epicondylitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library till September 2020 for randomised controlled trials analyzing the efficacy and safety of LP-PRP and LR-PRP in the management of lateral epicondylitis. Visual Analog Score(VAS) for pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score, Patient Reported Tennis-Elbow Evaluation (PRETEE) Score, Mayo Elbow Performance Score(MEPS) and adverse events were the outcomes analyzed. Analysis was performed in R-platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software.

RESULTS

We performed a single arm meta-analysis of 26 studies involving 2034 patients. On analysis it was noted that significant improvement was noted in the VAS for pain (p < 0.001), DASH score (p < 0.001), PRETEE score (p < 0.001) and MEPS (p < 0.027) compared to their pre-operative state. No significant increase in adverse events were noted compared to the control group (p = 0.170). While stratifying the results based on the type of PRP used, no significant difference was noted between the use of LP-PRP or LR-PRP in any of the above-mentioned outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

PRP is a safe and effective treatment option for lateral epicondylitis with clinical improvements in pain and functional scores and both types of PRP (LR-PRP & LP-PRP) offer similar results.

Evidence for the use of PRP in chronic midsubstance Achilles tendinopathy: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections have been proposed as an additional therapy in the treatment of chronic midsubstance Achilles tendinopathy (AT). The use of PRP injections as pharmacological treatment added to a conservative approach has gained growing interest, but the efficacy remains highly debated. The varying methodological quality of the available studies may contribute to these contradictory results. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to establish the existing evidence of PRP injections for chronic midsubstance AT on the functional outcome, with a risk of bias assessment of each included study.

METHODS

According to the PRISMA guidelines systematic searches were performed in Embase, the Cochrane library and Pubmed on June 12, 2020 for relevant literature. Only clinical trials comparing PRP injections with placebo, additional to an eccentric training program, in midsubstance AT were included. The primary outcome was Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment - Achilles (VISA-A) score at 3, 6 and 12 months post-injection. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (Rob 2). As secondary outcome we assessed reported changes in tendon structure after PRP injections.

RESULTS

A total of 367 studies were identified with the initial database search. Finally, four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met inclusion criteria for systematic review and meta-analysis with data of 170 patients available for pooling. Results showed no difference in clinical outcome between the PRP and placebo group at different points in time using the VISA-A score as outcome parameter (3 months 0.23 (CI -0.45, 0.91); 6 months 0.83 (CI -0.26, 1.92); 12 months 0.83 (CI -0.77, 2.44)). The bias analysis showed a low or intermediate risk of bias profile for all studies which supports the good methodological quality of each included article. Finally, it is unclear whether PRP injections cause an improvement in tendon structure. However, no direct relationship between tendon structure and clinical presentation of AT could be found.

CONCLUSION

PRP has no clear additional value in management of chronic midsubstance Achilles tendinopathy and therefore should not be used as a first-line treatment option.

Is Antiplatelet Therapy Contraindicated After Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment? A Narrative Review

Background

Antiplatelet therapies are often withheld before and after platelet-rich plasma product (PRPP) administration due to theoretical concerns that therapies that inhibit the function of platelets would inhibit the effects of PRPP.

Purpose/Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect that antiplatelet therapies have on the ability of PRPP to stimulate wound healing and tissue regeneration. Our hypothesis was that antiplatelet therapies would have highly heterogeneous effects on the biological activity of PRPP.

Study Design

Narrative review.

Methods

The Medline database was searched via PubMed to identify all studies related to PRPP and antiplatelet therapies, yielding 1417 publications. After the search was confined to articles published after 1995, there were 901 articles remaining. All abstracts were then screened to identify animal or human clinical studies that focused on growth factor or inflammatory cytokine production or treatment outcomes. We limited our analysis to studies reporting on orthopaedic pathologies and in vitro studies of antiplatelet therapies. Ultimately, 12 articles fit the search criteria.

Results

The majority of studies reported on the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as antiplatelet therapy. The majority of studies were in vitro analyses of growth factors, inflammatory cytokines, or cell viability, whereas 1 study examined clinical outcomes in an animal model. None of the studies investigated clinical outcomes in humans. All of the studies showed no effect or mixed effects of antiplatelet therapies on PRPP efficacy. One study showed PRPP recovery to baseline function after a 1-week washout period.

Conclusion

The literature did not provide support for the common clinical practice of withholding antiplatelet therapies in patients being treated with PRPP.

Epicondylopathia humeri radialis

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis is a common orthopaedic condition often massively restricting the quality of life of the affected patients. There are a wide variety of treatment options - with varying levels of evidence.

METHOD

The following statements and recommendations are based on the current German S2k guideline Epicondylopathia radialis humeri (AWMF registry number: 033 - 2019). All major German specialist societies participated in this guideline, which is based on a systematic review of the literature and a structured consensus-building process.

OUTCOMES

Lateral epicondylitis should be diagnosed clinically and can be confirmed by imaging modalities. The Guidelines Commission issues recommendations on clinical and radiological diagnostic workup. The clinical condition results from the accumulated effect of mechanical overload, neurologic irritation and metabolic changes. Differentiating between acute and chronic disorder is helpful. Prognosis of non-surgical regimens is favourable in most cases. Most cases spontaneously resolve within 12 months. In case of unsuccessful attempted non-surgical management for at least six months, surgery may be considered as an alternative, if there is a corresponding structural morphology and clinical manifestation. At present, it is not possible to recommend a specific surgical procedure.

CONCLUSION

This paper provides a summary of the guideline with extracts of the recommendations and statements of its authors regarding the pathogenesis, prevention, diagnostic workup as well as non-surgical and surgical management.

Corticosteroids vs autologous blood injection for lateral epicondylitis: Study protocol for a cohort trial

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence to assess the evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of autologous blood injections in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis patients. For this study, the aim was to compare the efficiency of corticosteroid and autologous blood injections for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis in a retrospective cohort trial in our single center.

METHODS

After being approved by the institutional review committee of Chongqing General Hospital (IRB# 2018.417.C, November 9, 2018), we performed a single-center, retrospective study between November 2018 and January 2020. All participants provided written informed consent. The criteria for inclusion in our experiment are as follows: over 18 years old; with the history of at least 6 months of lateral epicondylitis; and the palpation of lateral epicondyle tenderness; visual analog scale (≥4). In the group A, the patient were injected the autologous blood. In group B, the patients were immersed with 0.5% of bupivacaine (1 ml) and local corticosteroids (2 ml) at lateral epicondyle. The outcomes were composed of a visual analog scores of subjective pain severity over the past 24 hours as the primary result; and limb function in various tasks of daily activity measured with disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand quick questionnaire scores, the maximum grip strength and the modified scores of Nirschl, as secondary results. All the results were assessed before the injection and at 4 weeks and 8 weeks after the injection. For all examination, when the P value was less than .05, it would be defined to be a statistically significant difference.

RESULTS

The results of this study would provide new information about the influence of autologous blood injections in treating the lateral epicondylitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study protocol was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry6263).

Are PROMs used adequately in sports research? An analysis of 54 randomized controlled trials with PROMs as endpoint

Deviations from adequate use and reporting of PROMs may be problematic and misleading. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent of such problems in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). RCTs involving sports medicine research that used PROMs as primary outcomes were identified in 13 preselected journals. The articles were reviewed for nine potential problems related to how the PROM was used and how the data had been reported. The potential problems were as follows: aggregating subscale scores; combining patient-reported scores with physical, clinical, or para-clinical measures; using a PROM to diagnose or evaluate the individual patient; using a PROM for one leg or arm; selectively excluding domains or items; constructing a PROM for the specific occasion; mixing PROM formats (ie, digital, paper, telephone, e-mail, in person); ambiguous instructions for how the PROM should be completed; and recall bias. As covariates, we registered journal impact factor, year of publication, and existence of a registered protocol. In 29 (53.7%) of 54 identified RCTs, at least one potential problem was identified, the most common being aggregation of domain scores. This was not different with a published protocol or dependent on journal rankings, except for exclusion of domains, which was most common in high-ranking journals. Aggregation of domain scores was significantly less common in recently published articles compared with older articles (P = .03). Potential problematic use of PROMs and reporting of PROM data are common in RCTs, also in high-ranking journals, but less so in more recent articles.

Role of Mechanical Loading for Platelet-Rich Plasma-Treated Achilles Tendinopathy

There is no consensus on the optimal rehabilitation protocol after platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatment for tendinopathy despite basic science studies showing the critical role of mechanical loading in the restoration of tendon structure and function posttreatment. In this article, we will review tendon mechanobiology, platelet biology, and review levels I and II Achilles tendon clinical studies paying particular attention to the role of mechanical loading in rehabilitation of injured tendons. Animal studies emphasize the synergistic effect of mechanical tendon loading and PRP to treat tendon injury while clinical studies described minimal details on loading protocols.

Optimized platelet rich plasma releasate (O-rPRP) repairs galactosemia-induced ovarian follicular loss in rats by activating mTOR signaling and inhibiting apoptosis

Platelet rich plasma contains a collection of growth factors, and an optimal formulation, named O-rPRP, contains the highest possible concentration of growth factors.

Purpose

Challenging the healing power of O-rPRP in a high-galactose diet-induced premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) experimental rat model.

Methods

Rats were divided into four groups of ten rats each and treated for four week as follows; 1) the control group, fed with normal diet and received intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection of PBS once/week; 2) the POI group, fed with galactose diet (50%) and received PBS (i.p.) once/week; 3) the POI/O-rPRP group, fed a 50% galactose diet and received O-rPRP (i.p.) once/week; 4) the O-rPRP group (negative control), fed with a normal diet and received O-rPRP (i.p.) once/week. The levels of galactose, follicle stimulating hormone, 17 β-estradiol, anti-mullerian hormone and inhibin B were measured in serum samples. Western blotting and quantitative real-time PCR assays were employed to investigate the levels of miR-223, β1 integrin, p70S6k and MCL-1 in ovarian tissues.

Results

After O-rPRP treatment, β1 integrin expression was enhanced, and miR-223 expression was decreased. Unlike the untreated galactose group, in the group treated with O-rPRP, p70S6k and MCL-1 expression levels were increased, indicating that the mTOR growth signaling pathway was active and that apoptosis was inactive. After the introduction of O-rPRP, the number of follicles and the follicular maturation improved, which was consistent with the improvement of inhibin B levels and subsequent inhibition of FSH.

Conclusion

O-rPRP inhibited galactose-induced excessive atresia and provided an overall protective effect on the ovarian follicles.

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.

Comparison on effects of platelet-rich plasma versus autologous conditioned serum on Achilles tendon healing in a rat model

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of local administrations of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with autologous conditioned serum (ACS) on Achilles tendon healing in a rat model.

METHODS

In this study, 40 male Sprague-Dawley rats, aged 12 months and weighing 350 to 400 g were used. The rats were divided into three groups (n=10 in each group): a control group and two treatment groups (PRP vs ACS). A standardized procedure was applied for the complete rupture and repair of the Achilles tendon in each group. The PRP group received one dose of PRP on the operative area, and ACS group received ACS at 24, 48, and 72 hours after the surgery. The control group received no injection. Animals were sacrificed 30 days after the operation, and tendon healing in each group was assessed histopathologically based on Bonar's semi-quantitative score and Movin's semi-quantitative grading scale. For the biomechanical analyses, unoperated Achilles tendons of all rats in the control and ACS groups were also harvested, and pulling tests were applied to the specimen to measure the longitudinal axis strength. The highest force value among the data obtained was defined as the maximum strength value (Fmax).

RESULTS

The mean Bonar's score was significantly lower in the PRP group (3.8±0.8) than in the ACS (4.8±0.45) and control groups (5.2±0.837) (p=0.0028). The mean Movin's score was significantly lower in the PRP group (7.80±1.49) than in the ACS (9.8±1) and control groups (11.2±2.4) (p=0.029). The ratio of type I collagen was significantly higher in the PRP group (60±6) than in the ACS (52±4.5) and control groups (42±9) (p=0.005). Biomechanical results obtained from operated sites were comparable in terms of Fmax among groups (PRP, 33.93±2.61; ACS, 35.24±3.26; control, 35.69±3.62) (p=0.674). Similarly, the results obtained from unoperated sites were comparable among groups (PRP, 47.71±1.21; ACS, 48.14±2; control, 49.14.69±1.88) (p=0.395).

CONCLUSION

In terms of histopathological results, PRP seems to be more effective than ACS for Achilles tendon healing in rats.

Management of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Narrative Literature Review

Lateral epicondylitis, also termed as "tennis elbow," is the most common cause of elbow pain and dysfunction, mainly resulting from repetitive gripping or wrist extension during various activities. The exact pathogenesis remains largely elusive with putative tendinosis, a symptomatic degenerative process of the local tendon. It is usually diagnosed by clinical examinations. Sometimes, additional imaging is required for a specific differential diagnosis. Although most cases can be self-healing, the optimal treatment strategy for chronic lateral epicondylitis remains controversial. This article presents a landscape of emerging evidence on lateral epicondylitis and focuses on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management, shedding light on the understandings and treatment for healthcare professionals.

Post-Procedure Protocols Following Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been increasingly studied as a treatment for tendinopathy. Many factors may influence outcomes after PRP, including different protocols following administration. It was hypothesized that there would be heterogeneity in post-PRP protocols.

LITERATURE SURVEY

A systematized review of the literature on post-PRP protocols for tendinopathy was conducted using an electronic search of MEDLINE and Embase databases through September 2018.

METHODOLOGY

After duplicates were removed, English language articles involving adult patients who received PRP for tendinopathy were reviewed. Exclusion criteria included studies with fewer than 10 patients, PRP used to treat pathology other than tendinopathy, multiple protocols in one study, and surgical settings. Protocol specifics were extracted including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) restrictions before and after injection, postinjection restrictions on movement and weight bearing, use of orthoses, activity modifications, and postinjection rehabilitation protocols. Given limitations in the data, a meta-analysis was not performed.

SYNTHESIS

Eighty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Following PRP injection, weight-bearing restrictions were mentioned rarely (12% of protocols). Orthosis use was uncommon overall (18%) but more common in Achilles tendinopathy protocols (53%). The majority of protocols instituted a period of stretching (51%) and strengthening (54%). Stretching programs generally began 2-7 days following injection, and strengthening programs began within 2-3 weeks. Preinjection NSAID restriction was reported rarely (20%), whereas postinjection NSAID restriction was more common (56%), with a typical restriction of greater than 2 weeks (38%). Return to play or full activity was reported in 42% of protocols, most commonly at 4-6 weeks following injection.

CONCLUSION

Although the clinical effectiveness of PRP remains controversial, even less is known about the effect of post-PRP protocols, which may affect the outcomes attributed to PRP itself. No studies directly compare post-PRP protocols, and the protocols studied demonstrate substantial heterogeneity. Some consensus regarding post-PRP protocols exists, although the rationale for these recommendations is limited.

Platelet Concentrates in Musculoskeletal Medicine

Platelet concentrates (PCs), mostly represented by platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) are autologous biological blood-derived products that may combine plasma/platelet-derived bioactive components, together with fibrin-forming protein able to create a natural three-dimensional scaffold. These types of products are safely used in clinical applications due to the autologous-derived source and the minimally invasive application procedure. In this narrative review, we focus on three main topics concerning the use of platelet concentrate for treating musculoskeletal conditions: (a) the different procedures to prepare PCs, (b) the composition of PCs that is related to the type of methodological procedure adopted and (c) the clinical application in musculoskeletal medicine, efficacy and main limits of the different studies.

Comparing leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma injection with surgical intervention for the management of refractory tennis elbow. A prospective randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with ongoing symptoms after non-operative treatment of lateral epicondylosis are usually treated with surgical release. Platelet-rich plasma injection is an alternative treatment option. This study aims to determine whether there is a difference in outcome from platelet-rich plasma injection or surgical release for refractory tennis elbow.

METHOD

Eighty-one patients with a diagnosis of tennis elbow for a minimum of six months, treated with previous steroid injection and a minimum visual analogue scale pain score of 50/100 were randomised to open surgery release (41 patients) or leucocyte rich platelet-rich plasma (L-PRP) (40 patients). Patients completed the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation and Disability of the Arm Shoulder and Hand at baseline, 1.5, 3, 6 and 12 months post-intervention. The primary endpoint was change in Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation pain score at 12 months.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients completed final follow-up. Functional and pain scores improved in both groups. No differences in functional improvements were found but greater improvements in Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation pain scores were seen after surgery. Thirteen patients crossed over from platelet-rich plasma to surgery within 12 months, and one surgical patient underwent a platelet-rich plasma injection.

CONCLUSION

L-PRP and surgery produce equivalent functional outcome but surgery may result in lower pain scores at 12 months. Seventy per cent of patients treated with platelet-rich plasma avoided surgical intervention.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Vs Autologous Blood Vs Corticosteroid Injections in the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review, Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of platelet‐rich plasma (PRP), autologous blood (AB), and corticosteroid injections in patients with lateral epicondylitis.

Type of Study

Network meta‐analysis.

Literature Survey

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any two forms of injections among PRP, AB, and corticosteroid for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis were searched from inception to 30 November 2018, on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library.

Methodology

Two researchers independently selected and assessed the quality of RCTs with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. All relevant data from the included studies were extracted and heterogeneity was checked by Cochran's Q test and inconsistency statistic (I²). Publication bias was evaluated by constructing contour‐enhanced funnel plots. Stata 15 software was applied for pairwise meta‐analysis and network meta‐analysis. To explore the efficacy between different follow‐up periods, we considered the duration within 2 months to be short term, whereas 2 months or more was considered long term.

Synthesis

Twenty RCTs (n = 1271) were included in this network meta‐analysis. According to ranking probabilities, corticosteroid ranked first for visual analog score (VAS) (surface under the cumulative ranking [SUCRA] = 90.7), modified Nirschl score (82.9), maximum grip strength (69.5), modified Mayo score (MMS) (77.9), and Patient‐Related Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) score (93.3) for the short‐term period. For the long‐term period, PRP ranked first for VAS (94.3), pressure pain threshold (99.8), Disabilities of Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score (75.2), MMS (88.2), and the PRTEE score (81.8).

Conclusion

PRP was associated with more improvement in pain intensity and function in the long term than were the comparators. However, in the short term, corticosteroids were associated with the most improvement.

Clinical indications for image-guided interventional procedures in the musculoskeletal system: a Delphi-based consensus paper from the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR)-Part II, elbow and wrist

BACKGROUND

Although image-guided interventional procedures of the elbow and wrist are routinely performed, there is poor evidence in the literature concerning such treatments. Our aim was to perform a Delphi-based consensus on published evidence on image-guided interventional procedures around the elbow and wrist and provide clinical indications on this topic.

METHODS

A board of 45 experts in image-guided interventional musculoskeletal procedures from the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology were involved in this Delphi-based consensus study. All panelists reviewed and scored published papers on image-guided interventional procedures around the elbow and wrist updated to September 2018 according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine levels of evidence. Consensus on statements drafted by the panelists about clinical indications was considered as "strong" when more than 95% of panelists agreed and as "broad" if more than 80% agreed.

RESULTS

Eighteen statements were drafted, 12 about tendon procedures and 6 about intra-articular procedures. Only statement #15 reached the highest level of evidence (ultrasound-guided steroid wrist injections result in greater pain reduction and greater likelihood of attaining clinically important improvement). Seventeen statements received strong consensus (94%), while one received broad consensus (6%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is still poor evidence in published papers on image-guided interventional procedures around the elbow and wrist. A strong consensus has been achieved in 17/18 (94%) statements provided by the panel on clinical indications. Large prospective randomized trials are needed to better define the role of these procedures in clinical practice.

KEY POINTS

• The panel provided 18 evidence-based statements on clinical indications of image-guided interventional procedures around the elbow and wrist. • Only statement #15 reached the highest level of evidence: ultrasound-guided steroid wrist injections result in greater pain reduction and greater likelihood of attaining clinically important improvement. • Seventeen statements received strong consensus (94%), while broad consensus was obtained by 1 statement (6%).

Current Trends for Treating Lateral Epicondylitis

Lateral epicondylitis, also known as 'tennis elbow', is a degenerative rather than inflammatory tendinopathy, causing chronic recalcitrant pain in elbow joints. Although most patients with lateral epicondylitis resolve spontaneously or with standard conservative management, few refractory lateral epicondylitis are candidates for alternative non-operative and operative modalities. Other than standard conservative treatments including rest, analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, orthosis and physical therapies, nonoperative treatments encompass interventional therapies include different types of injections, such as corticosteroid, lidocaine, autologous blood, platelet-rich plasma, and botulinum toxin, which are available for both short-term and long-term outcomes in pain resolution and functional improvement. In addition, newly emerging biologic enhancement products such as bone marrow aspirate concentrate and autologous tenocyte injectates are also under clinical use and investigations. Despite all non-operative therapeutic trials, persistent debilitating pain in patients with lateral epicondylitis for more than 6 months are candidates for surgical treatment, which include open, percutaneous, and arthroscopic approaches. This review addresses the current updates on emerging non-operative injection therapies as well as arthroscopic intervention in lateral epicondylitis.

The use of biologics for the elbow: a critical analysis review

There is significant interest in biologic treatment options to improve the healing environment and more rapidly decrease symptoms in many conditions around the elbow. Despite fairly widespread use of biologic agents such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the elbow, there is a lack of clear evidence in the literature to support its use. The potential impact of these biologic agents must be evaluated with evidence from high-quality studies, particularly considering the high financial burden these treatments often impose on patients. The aim of this review is to provide an evidence-based summary of the biologic augmentation options available for use by the physician treating painful conditions of the elbow and to identify areas where further research is warranted.

Comparative Effectiveness of Different Nonsurgical Treatments for Patellar Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the functional improvement and pain reduction of different nonsurgical treatments for patellar tendinopathy (PT), a systematic review with network meta-analysis was performed.

METHODS

Studies were comprehensively searched for without language restrictions in the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and SPORTDiscus databases from inception to May 2018. Randomized controlled trials about nonsurgical treatments for PT were included. The outcome measurements were the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment (VISA) scale and pain scores (such as the visual analog scale or Numerical Rating Scale). Study quality was evaluated using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database score. Direct comparisons were performed using pairwise meta-analysis, whereas network meta-analysis was performed using a frequentist method in a multivariate random-effects model.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with 430 affected patellar tendons were included in the systematic review. The summary mean difference of improvement in the VISA scale versus the control group for corticosteroid injection was -23.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] -36.73 to -9.27), for leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma (LR-PRP) was 13.22 (95% CI 2.37-24.07), for focused extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) was -1.28 (95% CI -6.25 to 3.68), for radial ESWT was -6.68 (95% CI -20.20 to 6.84), for ultrasound was -0.70 (95% CI -11.23 to 9.83), for autologous blood injection was -0.60 (95% CI -9.30 to 8.10), for dry needling was 17.51 (95% CI -2.57 to 37.60), for topical glyceryl trinitrate was -0.90 (95% CI -13.07 to 11.27), and for skin-derived tendon-like cells was 10.40 (95% CI -1.59 to 22.39). LR-PRP (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve [SUCRA] = 87.5%) or dry needling (SUCRA = 90.5%) was most likely to be ranked the best in terms of improvement on the VISA scale. Compared with the control group, the summary mean difference of the change in pain score for corticosteroid injection was 0.80 (95% CI -3.48 to 5.08), for LR-PRP was -1.87 (95% CI -3.28 to -0.46), for focused ESWT was 0.13 (95% CI -0.68 to 0.93), for radial ESWT was 0.03 (95% CI -1.92 to 1.98), for ultrasound was -0.20 (95% CI -1.49 to 1.09), for autologous blood injection was 0.60 (95% CI -0.73 to 1.93), for dry needling was -0.37 (95% CI -2.71 to 1.97), and for topical glyceryl trinitrate was -0.50 (95% CI -2.55 to 1.55). The treatment most likely to be ranked the best in terms of change in pain score was LR-PRP (SUCRA = 94.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The network meta-analysis demonstrated that LR-PRP has the greatest functional improvement and pain reduction for PT compared with other treatment options. However, the treatment effect estimates can be biased by the possible intransitivity and should not be overestimated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, meta-analysis of Level I studies.

Needle tenotomy with PRP versus lidocaine in epicondylopathy: clinical and ultrasonographic outcomes over twenty months

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether pathological changes in elbow epicondylopathy, as assessed by conventional ultrasonography and clinical outcomes, could be modified following tenotomy with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus tenotomy with lidocaine.

METHODS

This prospective sub-study was part of a patient- and assessor-blinded, superiority-type, randomized, lidocaine-controlled trial that was performed in a tertiary hospital to assess the effectiveness of PRP versus lidocaine as tenotomy adjuvants in patients with epicondylopathy. Patients were followed after two sessions of tenotomy with either PRP or lidocaine adjuvants (4 ml) within a 2-week interval. Tendon thickness, echotexture, and neovascularization were assessed as secondary outcome measurements at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 20 months after treatment, and correlations with clinical outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

Twenty months after treatment, tenotomy induced changes in tendon structure, thickness (± = 0.0006), vascularity (p < 0.0001), and echotexture (p < 0.0001). In Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH-E) and pain (VAS-P) scores, 80.85% and 90.91% of patients showed a meaningful clinical improvement, respectively, without differences between PRP and lidocaine. There were significant differences in between-group changes in vascularity over time, p = 0.037 and p = 0.049 in the unadjusted and adjusted models, respectively. There was no relationship between pain or function and sonographic entities at the various time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Two successive needle tenotomies induced structural changes in recalcitrant epicondylopathy, with PRP displaying more vascularization and increased thickness over time compared to lidocaine. PRP compared with lidocaine did not result in improved function or decreased pain over 20 months.

Ultrasound-Guided Interventions in Lateral Epicondylitis

Lateral epicondylitis is a painful condition related to the myotendinous origin of the extensor muscles at the lateral epicondyle of the humerus. Primary treatment typically involves the use of rest, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and physiotherapy. However, in refractory cases where conventional therapy is ineffective, ultrasound-guided injection therapies have become a growing form of treatment. These include needle tenotomy, autologous whole blood injection (AWB), platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection and steroid injection. The consensus regarding the efficacy of individual approaches of ultrasound-guided treatment is unclear in the literature, and is explored further in this review.When evaluating these injection therapies individually, there are multiple case series describing the efficacy of each intervention in refractory lateral epicondylitis. A systematic review of needle tenotomy demonstrates an improvement in pain symptoms for patients with this condition, but all studies were poorly designed with no placebo or control group. Additionally, for PRP therapy, a systematic review performed in 2013 demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in pain and functionality for refractory lateral epicondylitis. However, these studies were similarly associated with a high risk of bias. Autologous whole blood injection has been evaluated through well-designed studies to show statistically significant reductions in pain with this intervention. But very few studies in total have been completed using AWB for lateral epicondylitis, and therefore no clear conclusions can be drawn at this time. Finally, corticosteroid use overall is unsupported in the evidence both in the short and long term, especially given that this condition is not an inflammatory pathology.

Long-term follow-up of platelet-rich plasma injections for refractory lateral epicondylitis

Background

Lateral epicondylitis (LE)¹ affects between 1 and 3% of the population. Recently, platelet-rich plasma (PRP)² has gained popularity.

Aim

Assess the long-term outcomes of PRP for patients with refractory LE.

Methods

We assessed 31 patients who had failed conservative management using the Oxford Elbow Score (OES).³.

Results

Mean follow-up: 5.2 years (range 4.2-6.1 years).87.1% exhibited minimum clinically important difference (MCID)⁴ in pain scores between pre-op and long-term. 90.3% displayed MCID in function and psycho-social domains.Two patients had a repeat injection and six underwent open release.

Discussion

PRP is successful in treating refractory LE in most patients and avoiding surgery.

Tennis elbow: A clinical review article

Lateral epicondylitis, or tennis elbow is a common condition that presents with pain and tenderness around the common extensor origin of the elbow. Tennis elbow is estimated to affect 1-3% of the adult population each year and is more common in the dominant arm. It is generally regarded as an overuse injury involving repeated wrist extension against resistance, although it can occur as an acute injury (trauma to the lateral elbow). Up to 50% of all tennis players develop symptoms due to various factors including poor swing technique the use of heavy racquet. It's also seen in labourers who utilise heavy tools or engage in repetitive gripping or lifting task. In this article, we discuss the existing literature in the field and the current thinking on optimum treatment modalities. We have reviewed the literature available on med line and have discussed the condition with our specialist colleagues in the field.