No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Steroid Injection for Lateral Epicondylitis
... Le infiltrazioni con corticosteroidi rappresentano il trattamento più frequentemente adottato nella pratica clinica ortopedica. Possono essere praticate sul punto di massimo dolore o in corrispondenza dell'inserzione del tendine dell'ERBC 7 . I cortisonici generalmente selezionati sono il desametasone, il triamcinolone e il betametasone; possono essere somministrati da soli o in associazione con anestetici locali, quali la mepivacaina e la bupivacaina 8 . ...
... 9,19 A variety of nonoperative methods have been proposed as treatment, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, steroid injections, and orthotic devices. 7,21 Physicians often recommend physical therapy, activity modification, or periods of rest to promote healing. Despite these common treatment measures, a standardized treatment protocol is not available for lateral epicondylitis to mitigate symptoms, speed recovery, or promote healing. ...
Lateral epicondylitis is a common cause of elbow pain that is treated with a variety of nonoperative measures and often improves with time. Minimal research is available on patients in whom these nonoperative treatments fail.
To identify baseline patient and disease factors associated with the failure of nonoperative treatment of lateral epicondylitis, defined as surgery after a period of nonoperative treatment.
Case control study; Level of evidence, 3.
A total of 580 patients treated for lateral epicondylitis at a tertiary center between 2007 and 2012 were analyzed. Disease-specific and patient demographic characteristics were compared between patient groups (nonoperative vs surgical treatment). A multivariable logistic regression model was created based on preliminary univariate testing to determine which characteristics were associated with failure of nonoperative treatment.
Of the 580 patients, 92 (16%) underwent surgical treatment at a mean of 6 months (range, 0-31 months) from their initial visit. Univariate analysis demonstrated a potential association (P < .10) between operative management and the following factors at initial diagnosis: increased age, body mass index, duration of symptoms, presence of radial tunnel syndrome, prior injection, physical therapy, splinting, smoking, workers' compensation, a labor occupation, use of narcotics, use of antidepressant medications, and previous orthopaedic surgery. In the final multivariable model, a workers' compensation claim (odds ratio [OR], 8.1), prior injection (OR, 5.6), the presence of radial tunnel syndrome (OR, 3.1), previous orthopaedic surgery (OR, 3.2), and duration of symptoms >12 months (OR, 2.5) remained significant independent predictors of surgical treatment.
This study identifies risk factors for surgical treatment for lateral epicondylitis. While these findings do not provide information regarding causal factors associated with surgery, these patient and disease-specific considerations may be helpful when counseling patients regarding treatment options and the likelihood of the success of continued nonoperative treatment.
© 2015 The Author(s).
... Un punto de referencia importante en las infiltraciones y en las técnicas percutáneas o abiertas del tratamiento de la epicondilitis es la parte más prominente del epicóndilo. 18 El origen del tendón ECRB se localiza 6 mm anterior a este. En las técnicas artroscópicas es útil tener en consideración que el ligamento colateral lateral se encuentra en la parte media de la circunferencia del cóndilo, que ocupa 40 % de su diámetro. ...
Introduction: the term tendinitis has been used frequently for the disease around the epicondyle; however, tendinosis would be more appropriate because of the pathologic process is degenerative with presence of fibroblasts and vascular hyperplasia. Treatment in general is conservative, less of 10 % require surgery. Objective: to describe the anatomy of muscles in the lateral epicondyle with the focus on the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) and the lateral collateral ligament. Methods: twenty elbows were dissected from fresh cadavers. The origin of ECRB and of the lateral collateral ligament was identified; measurements between them werw made and regarding the epicondyle. Results: the tendinous origin of ECRB was present in all the cases located deep into the extensor digitorum comunis. In 19 elbows the tendon of the ECRB was identified as a separate structure, originated anterior to epicondyle in 6 mm as average and 7.93 mm in width. In all elbows it was noted that the origin of the lateral collateral ligament was distal to origin of ECRB. Conclusions: there were two patterns of proximal distribution of ECRB. In the 60 % passed deep to extensor digitorum comunis and in the 40 % it was superficial in the same plane that the extensor carpi radialis longus and the extensor digitorum comunis. The lateral collateral ligament was located in the middle area of condyle in the 40 % of its diameter, it is a useful datum for arthroscopy technique because of performing the deep fasciotomy of extensor carpi radialis brevis, there is the risk of to section the ligament due to the immediate proximity between it and the ligament.
... Un punto de referencia importante en las infiltraciones y en las técnicas percutáneas o abiertas del tratamiento de la epicondilitis es la parte más prominente del epicóndilo. 18 El origen del tendón ECRB se localiza 6 mm anterior a este. En las técnicas artroscópicas es útil tener en consideración que el ligamento colateral lateral se encuentra en la parte media de la circunferencia del cóndilo, que ocupa 40 % de su diámetro. ...
Fundamentos anatómicos de la epicondilitis lateral Anatomical basic principles of the lateral epicondylitis Fondements anatomiques de l'épicondylite latérale RESUMEN Introducción: el término tendinitis ha sido usado con frecuencia para referirse a la enfermedad alrededor del epicóndilo, sin embargo, tendinosis sería más apropiado porque el proceso patológico es degenerativo con presencia de fibroblastos e hiperplasia vascular. El tratamiento en general es conservador, menos de 10 % requiere cirugía. Objetivo: describir la anatomía de los músculos en el epicóndilo lateral con el enfoque sobre el extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) y el ligamento colateral lateral. Métodos: se disecaron 20 codos de cadáveres frescos. Se identificó el origen del ECRB y del ligamento colateral lateral; se hicieron mediciones entre ellos y respecto al epicóndilo. Resultados: el origen tendinoso del ECRB se encontró en todos los casos profundo al extensor digitorum comunis. En 19 codos se identificó el tendón del ECRB como una estructura separada, que se originaba anterior al epicóndilo en promedio de 6 mm y con un ancho de 7,93 mm. En todos los codos se observó que el origen del ligamento colateral lateral era distal al origen del ECRB. Conclusión: se observaron dos patrones de distribución proximal del ECRB. En 60 % discurría profundo al extensor digitorum comunis y en 40 % superficial, en el mismo plano que el extensor carpi radialis longus y el extensor digitorum comunis. El ligamento colateral lateral se encontraba en la parte media del cóndilo en 40 % de su diámetro, dato útil en la técnica artroscópica, porque al realizar la fasciotomía
... Generally, the pain is distal to lateral epicondyle above the length of extensor tendon [5,11]. Treatment options are wait-and-see strategy, education and behavioral treatment, bracing, laser therapy, physiotherapy, oral NSAIDs administration, corticosteroid injection (CSI), local anesthesia injection, autologous blood injection, botulinum toxin injection, acupuncture, ESWT, iontophoresis, prolotherapy and surgery; However, there is no consensus on the preferred treatment [5,10,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19].Although the CSI has proved to have better outcomes among other palliative treatments [20,21], certain studies reported the recurrence rate of the lateral epicondylitis in 50-66 % of the patients following 6 months of the treatment [22]. Variety of risk factors and side effects has been reported to accompany CSI in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. ...
Introduction:
This study seeks to compare two treatment methods of lateral epicondylitis: corticosteroid injection (CSI) and a local anesthetic injection (LAI).
Materials and methods:
In this single-blinded randomized clinical trial, 138 patients with the diagnosis of lateral epicondylitis were assigned either into CSI group receiving methylprednisolone 1 ml (49 patients) or LAI group (51 patients) receiving procaine 1 ml 2 % in a single dose at the maximal point tenderness site. The primary outcome measure was elbow disability using Quick DASH, and secondary outcome measures were pain intensity using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and recurrence rate at pretreatment visit and at 3-, 6- and 12-week post-treatment visits.
Results:
There were no significant differences between the patients in both groups for demographic factors including age, gender, dominant hand, involved hand, and work pressure. Before treatment, the patients in both groups were suffering from the same rates of elbow disability and pain as measured by Quick DASH and VAS, respectively, (p > 0.05). In general, the recovery rate (comparison between pretreatment visit and last post-treatment visit) was significantly more effective and higher in CSI than LAI. CSI was dramatically more effective at 3-week visit, but less and less effective at 6- and 12-week visits. At 12-week visit the recurrence rate was 34.7 % (17 patients) in CSI group.
Conclusion:
For lateral epicondylitis, CSI has the best short-term treatment results yet the highest recurrent rates. The combination of CSI with other treatment option or with a change in injection technique from single injection to peppering injection may be promising.
... 11 Indeed, content experts have suggested that CLE is best viewed as self-limited condition and that "wait and see" may be a reasonable approach. 12 Prolotherapy (PrT) is an injection-based technique for treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain including tendinopathy. 13 Hypertonic dextrose and morrhuate sodium are common injectants 14 used in prior pilot-level RCTs. ...
Objective:
Chronic lateral epicondylosis is common, debilitating, and often refractory. Prolotherapy (PrT) is an injection therapy for tendinopathy. The efficacy of two PrT solutions for chronic lateral epicondylosis was evaluated.
Design:
This study is a three-arm randomized controlled trial. Twenty-six adults (32 elbows) with chronic lateral epicondylosis for 3 mos or longer were randomized to ultrasound-guided PrT with dextrose solution, ultrasound-guided PrT with dextrose-morrhuate sodium solution, or watchful waiting ("wait and see"). The primary outcome was the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (100 points) at 4, 8, and 16 wks (all groups) and at 32 wks (PrT groups). The secondary outcomes included pain-free grip strength and magnetic resonance imaging severity score.
Results:
The participants receiving PrT with dextrose and PrT with dextrose-morrhuate reported improved Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation composite and subscale scores at 4, 8, and/or 16 wks compared with those in the wait-and-see group (P < 0.05). At 16 wks, compared with baseline, the PrT with dextrose and PrT with dextrose-morrhuate groups reported improved composite Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation scores by a mean (SE) of 18.7 (9.6; 41.1%) and 17.5 (11.6; 53.5%) points, respectively. The grip strength of the participants receiving PrT with dextrose exceeded that of the PrT with dextrose-morrhuate and the wait and see at 8 and 16 wks (P < 0.05). There were no differences in magnetic resonance imaging scores. Satisfaction was high; there were no adverse events.
Conclusions:
PrT resulted in safe, significant improvement of elbow pain and function compared with baseline status and follow-up data and the wait-and-see control group. This pilot study suggests the need for a definitive trial.
... Fortunately, most patients report symptomatic improvement within 1 year with only 4% to 11% requiring surgical intervention. 5 Several factors are associated with failure of conservative interven- tion: manual laborer, involvement of the dominant arm, long duration of symptoms, high baseline pain levels at presentation, poor coping mechanisms, lower socioeconomic status, and concomitant pain in the neck or shoulder. 6 Injection into the extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon and common extensor origin has long been the mainstay of treatment. ...
Lateral epicondylitis is a commonly made diagnosis for general practitioners and orthopedic surgeons. Corticosteroid injection is a mainstay of early treatment. However, conflicting evidence exists to support the use of steroid injection, and no evidence in the literature supports an injection technique.
Nineteen patients diagnosed with acute lateral epicondylitis were evaluated to compare the peppered- and single-injection techniques using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, visual analog score (VAS), and grip strength. For elbows with a single injection, mean grip strength increased from 22.9 to 27.8 ( P =.053), mean VAS pain score decreased from 4.8 to 3.6 ( P =.604), and mean DASH score decreased from 2.6 to 1.8 points ( P =.026). For elbows with peppered injections, mean grip strength increased from 28.7 to 32.8 ( P =.336), mean VAS pain scores decreased from 3.7 to 2.3 ( P =.386), and mean DASH score decreased from 2.6 to 1.3 ( P =.008).
No studies have directly compared the peppered-injection technique to the single-injection technique. Our results suggest that patient outcome is improved with the single injection. The biomechanical or chemical reason for the distinction is yet unknown, but we postulate that the peppered technique may actually further damage the already compromised tendon. The theory that the peppered injection stimulates blood flow may be overestimated or false. Histochemical studies of the pathologic tissue must be performed to further delineate the reason for improved outcomes with the single-injection technique.
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.
Objective:
To compare the clinical efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections with that of corticosteroids in patients with lateral epicondylitis (LE).
Methods:
We searched for relevant studies on the comparison of PRP and corticosteroids in the management of lateral epicondylitis in electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wan Fang and China National Knowledge Internet, up to March 2019. The outcomes were pain score, elbow joint function and adverse effects after local injection. For continuous data, the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used. Risk difference (RD) with a 95% CI were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The data were collected and input into the STATA software.
Results:
A total of seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 515 patients were finally included in our study. The present meta-analysis indicated that PRP injection yielded statistically significant superior in pain scores and elbow joint function at a 6-month follow up compared with local corticosteroid injection. No significant difference was identified between two groups regarding the post-injection adverse events.
Conclusion:
Local PRP injections was associated with superior outcomes for reducing pain and improving elbow joint function compared with local corticosteroids treatment for LE at a follow-up of 6 months.
Enthesopathy of the origin of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (eECRB) feels like damage, the associated pain feels like interference with healing, and it feels as if something needs to be done or it will hurt forever. However, best evidence suggests that eECRB is a common, benign, self-limited rite of passage through middle-age that lasts about a year or so and for which we have no disease-modifying treatments. That is difficult for patients and caregivers to believe. Curiosity—an enthusiasm for thinking past one’s first impressions—seems key to minimizing symptoms and disability in diseases like eECRB. Patients can learn self-efficacy (confidence they can reach their goals in spite of symptoms) and caregivers can either reinforce or undermine this effective coping strategy by what they do and say. Given that self-efficacy is—by far—the strongest predictor of pain intensity and magnitude of disability, caregivers should try to optimize it with all they say and do for each patient.
Lateral epicondylitis is primarily a non-surgical problem. While surgery for lateral epicondylitis is usually not indicated, as there are certain circumstances outlined elsewhere in this text where surgery may be the appropriate or preferred treatment for this condition. However, most cases of lateral epicondylitis can be managed successfully without surgery until they resolve in 80–95% of cases.
Abstract
Introduction: Lateral “Epicondylitis” represents an overload injury, frequent on tennis
players, however, the risk factors were identified for working populations and not for tennis
players.
Objective: Determinate the prevalence of the “epicondylitis” and on the factors which are
more determinant to establish a set of recommendations that would help the prevention of the
pathology.
Methods: 69 people, with ages between 10 and 67, in a population of 120 which practice
tennis in a regular way, participated in the study, replying to an investigation that assesses
demographic factors, aspects concerning to the practice of tennis and to data concerning the
eventual presence of “epicondylitis”.
Results: 36 cases (52,2 %) had disease, 42,9% of them had between 13 and 24 years old; the
dominant gender was the male one (63,8%); 53,6% did competition. Continuous training,
without interludes of 2 hours or more (Odds Ratio (OR): 3,07; Prelude of Trust 85% (CI):
1,13; 8,33; p: 0,026); training of 4 hours or more of 6 hours a week (OR:2.8; CI: 1.04, 7.47;
p:0.037), demonstrated to be risk factors more prevalent to catch the “disease”. Other factors
have showed some relevance, such as the practice out of locals with supervision of the trainer
(OR: 4.97; CI: 1.70, 14.53); 70,6% of the people with high BMI (Body Mass Index) have the
disease, as well as 78,9% of the athletes that make high competiton.
Conclusion: “epicondylitis” is relatively frequent on tennis players, and the factors related
with an overload of workout – number of weakly hours e continuous training, without
preludes are the most prevalent aspects to the development of the disease. To prevent the
disease, the hours of continuous training should be decreased, increasing the amount and the
time of preludes during the activity.
Keywords: Lateral Epicondylitis/Tennis Player Elbow, prevalence, risk factors, prevention,
population of tennis players.
To measure the level of compliance to conservative treatment of epicondylitis and to identify factors affecting compliance.
Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is a common complaint causing characteristic pain in the lateral elbow and upper forearm, and tenderness of the forearm extensor muscles. It is thought to be an overuse injury and can have a major impact on the patient's social and professional life. The condition is challenging to treat and prone to recurrent episodes. The average duration of a typical episode ranges from 6 to 24 months, with most (89%) reporting recovery by 1 year.
This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence concerning the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for LET.
A comprehensive search was conducted from database inception to 2012 in a range of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases.
We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to summarise the current evidence concerning the clinical effectiveness and a systematic review for the cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for LET. We identified additional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that could contribute further evidence to existing systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and other important databases from inception to January 2013.
A total of 29 systematic reviews published since 2003 matched our inclusion criteria. These were quality appraised using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist; five were considered high quality and evaluated using a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A total of 36 RCTs were identified that were not included in a systematic review and 29 RCTs were identified that had only been evaluated in an included systematic review of intermediate/low quality. These were then mapped to existing systematic reviews where further evidence could provide updates. Two economic evaluations were identified.
The summary of findings from the review was based only on high-quality evidence (scoring of > 5 AMSTAR). Other limitations were that identified RCTs were not quality appraised and dichotomous outcomes were also not considered. Economic evaluations took effectiveness estimates from trials that had small sample sizes leading to uncertainty surrounding the effect sizes reported. This, in turn, led to uncertainty of the reported cost-effectiveness and, as such, no robust recommendations could be made in this respect.
Clinical effectiveness evidence from the high-quality systematic reviews identified in this overview continues to suggest uncertainty as to the effectiveness of many conservative interventions for the treatment of LET. Although new RCT evidence has been identified with either placebo or active controls, there is uncertainty as to the size of effects reported within them because of the small sample size. Conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness are also unclear. We consider that, although updated or new systematic reviews may also be of value, the primary focus of future work should be on conducting large-scale, good-quality clinical trials using a core set of outcome measures (for defined time points) and appropriate follow-up. Subgroup analysis of existing RCT data may be beneficial to ascertain whether or not certain patient groups are more likely to respond to treatments.
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003593.
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Tennis elbow (TE) is one of the commonest myotendinosis. Different treatment options are available and autologous blood injection has emerged as the one of the acceptable modalities of treatment. Long term studies over a larger group of patients are however lacking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate these patients on longer durations. One-hundred and twenty patients of TE, who failed to respond to conventional treatment including local steroid injections were taken up for this prospective study over the period from year 2005 to 2011 and were followed up for the minimum of 3 years (range 3-9 years). Two mL of autologous blood was taken from the ipsilateral limb and injected into the lateral epicondyle. The effectiveness of the procedure was assessed by Pain Rating Sscale and Nirschl Staging, which was monitored before the procedure, at first week, monthly for first three months, at 6 months and then 3 monthly for first year, six monthly for next 2 years and then yearly. Statistical analysis was done and a P value of <0.05 was taken as significant. The patients (76 females and 44 males) were evaluated after procedure. The mean age group was 40.67±8.21. The mean follow up was 5.7±1.72 (range 3 to 9 years). The mean pain score and Nirschl stage before the procedure was 3.3±0.9 and 6.2±0.82 respectively. At final follow up the pain score and Nirschl were 1.1±0.9 and 1.5±0.91 respectively. Autologous blood injection was found to be one of the modalities for treatment of TE. Being cheap, available and easy method of treatment, it should be considered as a treatment modality before opting for the surgery. Universal guidelines for the management of tennis elbow should be made as there is lot of controversy regarding the treatment.
Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is often considered an inflammatory disease characterized by tendon microtears that are followed by an incomplete reparative response that leads to chronic pain and decreased function on the upper extremity. A modality that is commonly used for the treatment of LE is the injection of corticosteroids. Evidence supports corticosteroid injections to be an effective short-term intervention that lacks intermediate and long-term relief as well as having negative effects on tenocyte proliferation, which is essential in the tissue healing process. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been shown to be more effective, providing longer positive results with a lower recurrence rate. PRP's powerful growth factor stimulates tissue repair and protects tenocytes from the cytotoxic effects caused by corticosteroids. Unfortunately, the efficacy of PRP has been questioned because of past study designs. Nevertheless, recent studies provide practice-changing evidence that supports the use of PRP for the treatment of LE.
We report a controlled, prospective study to investigate the effect of treatment by low-energy extracorporeal shock waves on pain in tennis elbow. We assigned at random 100 patients who had had symptoms for more than 12 months to two groups to receive low-energy shock-wave therapy. Group I received a total of 3000 impulses of 0.08 mJ/mm ² and group II, the control group, 30 impulses.
The patients were reviewed after 3, 6 and 24 weeks. There was significant alleviation of pain and improvement of function after treatment in group I in which there was a good or excellent outcome in 48% and an acceptable result in 42% at the final review, compared with 6% and 24%, respectively, in group II.
To compare the clinical effectiveness of local corticosteroid injection, standard non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and simple analgesics for the early treatment of lateral epicondylitis in primary care.
Multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial.
23 general practices in North Staffordshire and South Cheshire.
164 patients aged 18-70 years presenting with a new episode of lateral epicondylitis. Interventions: Local injection of 20 mg methylprednisolone plus lignocaine, naproxen 500 mg twice daily for two weeks, or placebo tablets. All participants received a standard advice sheet and co-codamol as required.
Participants' global assessment of improvement (five point scale) at four weeks. Pain, function, and "main complaint" measured on 10 point Likert scales at 4 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months.
Over 2 years, 53 subjects were randomised to injection, 53 to naproxen, and 58 to placebo. Prognostic variables were similar between groups at baseline. At 4 weeks, 48 patients (92%) in the injection group were completely better or improved compared with 30 (57%) in the naproxen group (P<0.001) and 28 (50%) in the placebo group (P<0.001). At 12 months, 43 patients (84%) in the injection group had pain scores </=3 compared with 45 (85%) in the naproxen group and 44 (82%) in the placebo group (P>0.05).
Early local corticosteroid injection is effective for lateral epicondylitis. Outcome at one year was good in all groups, and effective early treatment does not seem to influence this.
Lateral epicondylitis is generally treated with corticosteroid injections or physiotherapy. Dutch clinical guidelines recommend a wait-and-see policy. We compared the efficacy of these approaches.
Patients with lateral epicondylitis of at least 6 weeks' duration were recruited by family doctors. We randomly allocated eligible patients to 6 weeks of treatment with corticosteroid injections, physiotherapy, or a wait-and-see policy. Outcome measures included general improvement, severity of the main complaint, pain, elbow disability, and patient satisfaction. Severity of elbow complaints, grip strength, and pressure pain threshold were assessed by a research physiotherapist who was unaware of treatment allocation. We assessed all outcomes at 3, 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. The principal analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis.
We randomly assigned 185 patients. At 6 weeks, corticosteroid injections were significantly better than all other therapy options for all outcome measures. Success rates were 92% (57) compared with 47% (30) for physiotherapy and 32% (19) for wait-and-see policy. However, recurrence rate in the injection group was high. Long-term differences between injections and physiotherapy were significantly in favour of physiotherapy. Success rates at 52 weeks were 69% (43) for injections, 91% (58) for physiotherapy, and 83% (49) for a wait-and-see policy. Physiotherapy had better results than a wait-and-see policy, but differences were not significant.
Patients should be properly informed about the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment options for lateral epicondylitis. The decision to treat with physiotherapy or to adopt a wait-and-see policy might depend on available resources, since the relative gain of physiotherapy is small.
Patients with lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) are frequently treated with corticosteroid injections, in order to relieve pain and diminish disability. The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of corticosteroid injections for lateral epicondylitis. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by a highly sensitive search strategy in six databases in combination with reference tracking. Two independent reviewers selected and assessed the methodological quality of RCTs that included patients with lateral epicondylitis treated with corticosteroid injection(s), and reported at least one clinically relevant outcome measure. Standardised mean differences were computed for continuous data and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data. A best-evidence synthesis was conducted, weighting the studies with respect to their internal validity, statistical significance, clinical relevance, and statistical power. Thirteen studies consisting of 15 comparisons were included in the review, evaluating the effects of corticosteroid injections compared to placebo injection (n=2), injection with local anaesthetic (n=5), another conservative treatment (n=5), or another corticosteroid injection (n=3). Almost all studies had poor internal validity scores. For short-term outcomes (<or=6 weeks), statistically significant and clinically relevant differences were found on pain, global improvement and grip strength for corticosteroid injection compared to placebo, local anaesthetic and conservative treatments. For intermediate (6 weeks-6 months) and long-term outcomes (>or=6 months), no statistically significant or clinically relevant results in favour of corticosteroid injections were found. Although the available evidence shows superior short-term effects of corticosteroid injections for lateral epicondylitis, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions on the effectiveness of injections, due to the lack of high quality studies. No beneficial effects were found for intermediate or long-term follow-up. More, better designed, conducted and reported RCTs with intermediate and long-term follow-up are needed.
To evaluate the available evidence of the effectiveness of physiotherapy for lateral epicondylitis of the elbow.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified by a highly sensitive search strategy in six databases in combination with reference checking. Two independent reviewers selected RCTs that included a physiotherapy intervention, patients with lateral epicondylitis, and at least one clinically relevant outcome measure. No language restrictions were made. Methodological quality was independently assessed by two blinded reviewers. A best evidence synthesis, including a quantitative and qualitative analysis, was conducted, weighting the studies with respect to their internal validity, statistical significance, clinical relevance, and statistical power.
23 RCTs were included in the review, evaluating the effects of lasertherapy, ultrasound treatment, electrotherapy, and exercises and mobilisation techniques. Fourteen studies satisfied at least 50% of the internal validity criteria. Except for ultrasound, pooling of data from RCTs was not possible because of insufficient data, or clinical or statistical heterogeneity. The pooled estimate of the treatment effects of two studies on ultrasound compared to placebo ultrasound, showed statistically significant and clinically relevant differences in favour of ultrasound. There is insufficient evidence either to demonstrate benefit or lack of effect of lasertherapy, electrotherapy, exercises and mobilisation techniques for lateral epicondylitis.
Despite the large number of studies, there is still insufficient evidence for most physiotherapy interventions for lateral epicondylitis due to contradicting results, insufficient power, and the low number of studies per intervention. Only for ultrasound, weak evidence for efficacy was found. More better designed, conducted and reported RCTs are needed.
To investigate the efficacy of physiotherapy compared with a wait and see approach or corticosteroid injections over 52 weeks in tennis elbow.
Single blind randomised controlled trial.
Community setting, Brisbane, Australia.
198 participants aged 18 to 65 years with a clinical diagnosis of tennis elbow of a minimum six weeks' duration, who had not received any other active treatment by a health practitioner in the previous six months.
Eight sessions of physiotherapy; corticosteroid injections; or wait and see.
Global improvement, grip force, and assessor's rating of severity measured at baseline, six weeks, and 52 weeks.
Corticosteroid injection showed significantly better effects at six weeks but with high recurrence rates thereafter (47/65 of successes subsequently regressed) and significantly poorer outcomes in the long term compared with physiotherapy. Physiotherapy was superior to wait and see in the short term; no difference was seen at 52 weeks, when most participants in both groups reported a successful outcome. Participants who had physiotherapy sought less additional treatment, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, than did participants who had wait and see or injections.
Physiotherapy combining elbow manipulation and exercise has a superior benefit to wait and see in the first six weeks and to corticosteroid injections after six weeks, providing a reasonable alternative to injections in the mid to long term. The significant short term benefits of corticosteroid injection are paradoxically reversed after six weeks, with high recurrence rates, implying that this treatment should be used with caution in the management of tennis elbow.
Pooled meta-analyses of statistically and clinically heterogeneous data of randomised-controlled studies are difficult to interpret. Therefore, a qualitative study-by-study assessment was thought to be of greater relevance, to physicians confronted with a therapy-resistant tennis elbow patient, to determine the effectiveness of shock wave therapy (SWT) for lateral elbow tendinopathy.
Orthopaedic clinic.
Randomized trials were identified from a current search of The Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group specialized register of trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and reference lists of articles and dissertations. We included 10 trials that randomized 948 participants to SWT or placebo or treatment control. For each trial, two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality and extracted data. Methodological quality criteria included appropriate randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, number lost to follow-up and intention-to-treat analysis.
Conflicting results of the 10 studies were found. There was considerable heterogeneity in terms of methodological quality; treatment regimen; patient selection and follow-up period, precluding pooled analyses. Instead, individual trial results were described in the text. Only six trials had a high-quality methodology. Two independent high-quality randomized placebo-controlled trials (196 participants) reported significant success of SWT over placebo (65 versus 28%; 61 versus 29%). Design of both trials included enrolment of chronic recalcitrant patients only; 1500-2000 shocks of low-energy flux density (0.1 mJ/mm(2)) applied to the site of maximal discomfort (clinical focusing) in weekly intervals; no use of local anaesthesia and main follow-up at least 3 months after the last application. Three other independent high-quality trials (406 participants) did not find any benefit of SWT over placebo (32 versus 33%; 35 versus 34%; 39 versus 31%). In these three trials, study designs deviated from the design described earlier, enrolling acute patients or applying SWT under local anaesthesia or expanding the application intervals to 4 weeks, while reducing the main follow-up to 4 weeks.
With current studies heterogeneous in terms of the duration of the disorder; type, frequency and total dose of SWT; period of time between SWT; type of management and control group; timing of follow-up and outcomes assessed, a pooled meta-analysis of SWT for lateral elbow tendinopathy was considered inappropriate. In a qualitative systematic per-study analysis identifying common and diverging details of 10 randomized-controlled trials, evidence was found for effectiveness of shock wave treatment for tennis elbow under well-defined, restrictive conditions only.
Recent reviews have indicated that low level level laser therapy (LLLT) is ineffective in lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) without assessing validity of treatment procedures and doses or the influence of prior steroid injections.
Systematic review with meta-analysis, with primary outcome measures of pain relief and/or global improvement and subgroup analyses of methodological quality, wavelengths and treatment procedures.
18 randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) were identified with 13 RCTs (730 patients) meeting the criteria for meta-analysis. 12 RCTs satisfied half or more of the methodological criteria. Publication bias was detected by Egger's graphical test, which showed a negative direction of bias. Ten of the trials included patients with poor prognosis caused by failed steroid injections or other treatment failures, or long symptom duration or severe baseline pain. The weighted mean difference (WMD) for pain relief was 10.2 mm [95% CI: 3.0 to 17.5] and the RR for global improvement was 1.36 [1.16 to 1.60]. Trials which targeted acupuncture points reported negative results, as did trials with wavelengths 820, 830 and 1064 nm. In a subgroup of five trials with 904 nm lasers and one trial with 632 nm wavelength where the lateral elbow tendon insertions were directly irradiated, WMD for pain relief was 17.2 mm [95% CI: 8.5 to 25.9] and 14.0 mm [95% CI: 7.4 to 20.6] respectively, while RR for global pain improvement was only reported for 904 nm at 1.53 [95% CI: 1.28 to 1.83]. LLLT doses in this subgroup ranged between 0.5 and 7.2 Joules. Secondary outcome measures of painfree grip strength, pain pressure threshold, sick leave and follow-up data from 3 to 8 weeks after the end of treatment, showed consistently significant results in favour of the same LLLT subgroup (p < 0.02). No serious side-effects were reported.
LLLT administered with optimal doses of 904 nm and possibly 632 nm wavelengths directly to the lateral elbow tendon insertions, seem to offer short-term pain relief and less disability in LET, both alone and in conjunction with an exercise regimen. This finding contradicts the conclusions of previous reviews which failed to assess treatment procedures, wavelengths and optimal doses.
Background: The Oxford Levels of Evidence are now routinely assigned at many orthopaedic journals. One disadvantage of this approach is that study designs with a higher level of evidence may be given greater weight than the overall quality of the study merits. In other words, there is no guarantee that research is scientifically valid simply because a more sophisticated study design was employed. The aim of this study was to review Level-I and II therapeutic studies on lateral epicondylitis to measure variation in quality among the highest-level study designs. Methods: Fifty-four prospective randomized therapeutic trials involving patients with lateral epicondylitis were evaluated by two independent reviewers according to the Oxford Levels of Evidence, a modification of the Coleman Methodology Score (a 0 to 100-point scale), and the revised CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) score. Results: The two reviewers were consistent in their use of the Oxford Levels of Evidence (kappa = 0.73, p < 0.01), the modified Coleman Methodology Score (kappa = 0.73; p < 0.01), and the CONSORT score (kappa = 0.53; p < 0.01). Both reviewers rated the majority of studies as Level II (91% and 94%) and as unsatisfactory according to the Coleman Methodology Score (87% and 89%) and the CONSORT score (62% and 63%). Areas of deficiency included poor descriptions of recruitment (>90% of the trials), power-level calculations (73%), randomization (58%), blinding (90%), and participant flow (50%) as well as inadequate follow-up, sample size, and blinding. Conclusions: The use of the gold-standard trial design, the prospective randomized therapeutic study (Level-I or II evidence), does not ensure quality research or reporting. Critical analysis of scientific work is important regardless of the study design. Clinical scientists should be familiar with the CONSORT criteria and adhere to them when reporting clinical trials.
We tested the hypothesis that there is no difference in disability, pain, and grip strength 1 and 6 months after corticosteroid and lidocaine injection compared with lidocaine injection alone (placebo).
Sixty-four patients were randomly assigned to dexamethasone (n = 31) or placebo (n = 33) injection. At enrollment, disability (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand [DASH] questionnaire), pain on a visual analog scale, grip strength, depression (the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; CESD), and ineffective coping skills (the Pain Catastrophizing Scale; PCS) were comparable between treatment groups. At 1 and 6 months, DASH, pain, and grip strength measures were repeated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine predictors of disability. Analysis was by intention to treat.
One month after injection, DASH scores averaged 24 versus 27 points (dexamethasone vs placebo), pain 3.7 versus 4.3 cm, and grip strength 83% versus 87%. At 6 months, DASH scores averaged 18 versus 13 points, pain 2.4 versus 1.7 cm, and grip strength 98% versus 97%. CESD and PCS scores correlated with disability as measured by the DASH questionnaire. The best multivariate models included CESD at 1 month and PCS scores at 6 months and explained the majority of variability in DASH scores.
Corticosteroid injection did not affect the apparently self-limited course of lateral elbow pain. In secondary analyses in a subset of patients, perceived disability associated with lateral elbow pain correlated with depression and ineffective coping skills.
Therapeutic I.
Corticosteroid injections are the mainstay of treating tennis elbow even though their effectiveness has not been well established by controlled studies. A survey of consultant rheumatologists confirmed a widespread preference for this treatment but they varied in their choice of steroid dose and preparation. We examined the value of some practices by comparing local injections of 2 ml 1% lignocaine with either 10 mg triamcinolone or 25 mg hydrocortisone made up to 2 ml with 1% lignocaine (Study 1). The investigation was conducted double blind. Within the first 8 weeks, pain relief was greater for triamcinolone than hydrocortisone although the differences were not statistically significant. The response to both steroid preparations was significantly better than for lignocaine up to this point but at 24 weeks, the degrees of improvement were similar for all three groups and many patients still had pain. Relapse was common. In a separate but similarly designed study, triamcinolone 10 mg was compared with 20 mg of the same agent. Improvements of pain were similar and followed the same time scale. Post-injection worsening of pain occurred in approximately half of all steroid treated patients in both studies and this was sometimes severe and persistent. It was less frequent amongst those given lignocaine alone. Skin atrophy was reported in all groups but was more frequent amongst those given triamcinolone in Study 1. In conclusion, more rapid relief of symptoms was achieved with 10 mg triamcinolone than with 25 mg hydrocortisone or lignocaine alone and there was less needed to repeat injections. Results obtained with 20 mg triamcinolone were similar to those of the smaller dose.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
To assess the effectiveness of low intensity laser therapy in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.
A double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.
A physical medicine and rehabilitation clinic.
Fifty-two ambulatory men and women (age range, 18-70 yr) with symptomatic lateral epicondylitis of more than 30 days in duration and a normal neurologic examination.
Subjects were bloc randomized into 2 groups with a computer-generated schedule. All underwent irradiation for 60 seconds at 7 points along the symptomatic forearm 3 times weekly for 4 weeks by a masked therapist. The sole difference between the groups was that the probe of a 1.06-microm continuous wave laser emitted 204 mW/cm2 (12.24 J/cm2) for the treated subjects and was inactive for the control subjects. Subjects were assessed at the beginning, midpoint (session 6), and end (session 12) of treatment, as well as at follow-up 28 to 35 days after their last treatment.
Pain in last 24 hours, tenderness to palpation, and patient's perception of change (benefit).
The treated and untreated groups were well matched demographically. Masking was maintained for subjects and therapists; however, the groups did not vary to a statistically significant extent in terms of the main outcome measures either during treatment or at follow-up. Secondary outcome variables, such as grasp and pinch strength, medication use, and pain with grasp and pinch, also failed to statistically differ significantly between the groups. No significant treatment side effects were noted.
Treatment with low intensity 1.06-microm laser irradiation within the parameters of this study was a safe but ineffective treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Further research seems warranted in this controversial area.
To analyze whether a corticosteroid injection in combination with rehabilitation early in the course of lateral epicondylitis (LE) alters the outcome up to 6 months after injection compared with a control injection and rehabilitation.
Randomized, controlled, double-blind study.
Sports medicine center in a tertiary care center.
Subjects with a diagnosis of LE whose symptoms had been present less than 4 weeks were included. Subjects were recruited by word of mouth and through advertising. The 39 subjects who were recruited were 18 to 65 years old.
19 subjects were randomized to receive rehabilitation and a sham injection, and 20 were randomized to receive rehabilitation and a corticosteroid injection. At 4 and 8 weeks, they were reevaluated and their treatment programs were modified, if indicated.
Outcome measurements were performed at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 6 months, and included a functional pain questionnaire and a visual analogue pain scale. Painless grip strength on the affected side and maximal grip strength bilaterally were measured at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks.
There were no significant differences in outcome between the two groups with the exception of an improvement in the visual analogue pain scale in the corticosteroid group from 8 weeks to 6 months. Outcome measurements in both groups improved significantly over time; more than 80% of subjects reported improvements from baseline to 6 months for all scales.
A corticosteroid injection does not provide a clinically significant improvement in the outcome of LE, and rehabilitation should be the first line of treatment in patients with a short duration of symptoms.
This review is one in a series of reviews of interventions for lateral elbow pain. Lateral elbow pain, or tennis elbow, is a common condition causing pain in the elbow and forearm and lack of strength and function of the elbow and wrist. Acupuncture has long been used to treat lateral elbow pain in China and in Western countries practitioners and consumers are increasingly exploring acupuncture as a first line treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. No previous systematic review of the available evidence has been conducted to determine whether acupuncture is efficacious in the treatment lateral elbow pain.
To determine the effectiveness of acupuncture in the treatment of adults with lateral elbow pain with respect to pain reduction, improvement in function, grip strength and adverse effects.
We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and SCISEARCH and the Cochrane Clinical Trials Register and the Musculoskeletal Review Group's specialist trial database from 1966 to June 2001. Identified keywords and authors were searched in an effort to retrieve as many trials as possible.
Two independent reviewers assessed all identified trials against pre-determined inclusion criteria. Randomised and pseudo randomised trials in all languages were included in the review provided they were testing acupuncture compared to placebo or another intervention in adults with lateral elbow pain (tennis elbow). Outcomes of interest were pain, function, disability, quality of life, strength, participant satisfaction with treatment and adverse effect.
For continuous variables means and standard deviations were extracted or imputed to allow the analysis of weighted mean difference, while for binary data numbers of events and total population were analysed and interpreted as relative risks. Trial results were combined only in the absence of clinical and statistical heterogeneity.
Four small randomized controlled trials were included but due to flaws in study designs (particularly small populations, uncertain allocation concealment and substantial loss to follow up) and clinical differences between trials, data from trials could not be combined in a meta-analysis. One randomised controlled trial found that needle acupuncture results in relief of pain for significantly longer than placebo (WMD = 18.8 hours, 95%CI 10.1 to 27.5) and is more likely to result in a 50% or greater reduction in pain after 1 treatment (RR 0.33, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.69) (Molsberger 1994). A second randomized controlled trial demonstrated needle acupuncture to be more likely to result in overall participant reported improvement than placebo in the short term (RR = 0.09 95% CI 0.01 to 0.64) (Haker 1990a). No significant differences were found in the longer term (after 3 or 12 months). A randomized controlled trial of laser acupuncture versus placebo demonstrated no differences between laser acupuncture and placebo with respect to overall benefit (Haker 1990b). A fourth included trial published in Chinese demonstrated no difference between Vitamin B12 injection plus acupuncture, and Vitamin B12 injection alone (Wang 1997).
There is insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of acupuncture (either needle or laser) in the treatment of lateral elbow pain. This review has demonstrated needle acupuncture to be of short term benefit with respect to pain, but this finding is based on the results of 2 small trials, the results of which were not able to be combined in meta-analysis. No benefit lasting more than 24 hours following treatment has been demonstrated. No trial assessed or commented on potential adverse effect. Further trials, utilising appropriate methods and adequate sample sizes, are needed before conclusions can be drawn regarding the effect of acupuncture on tennis elbow.
This review is one in a series of reviews of interventions for lateral elbow pain. Lateral elbow pain, or tennis elbow, is a common condition causing pain in the elbow and forearm and lack of strength and function of the elbow and wrist. Shock wave therapy (ESWT) involves the application of single pulsed acoustic wave. Since the 1990's reports of benefit of ESWT in the treatment of tendon disorders have been appearing in the literature. A systematic review published in the German language appeared in 2000 (Boddeker 2000)
To determine the effectiveness and safety of ESWT in the treatment of adults with lateral elbow pain.
Comprehensive electronic searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and SCISEARCH were combined with searches of the Cochrane Clinical Trails Registrar and the Musculoskeletal Review Group's specialist trial database. Identified keywords and authors were searched again in an effort to identify as many trials as possible.
Two independent reviewers assessed all identified trials against pre-determined inclusion criteria. Randomised and pseudo randomised trials in all languages were evaluated for inclusion in the review provided they described individuals with lateral elbow pain and were comparing the use of ESWT as a treatment strategy.
For continuous variables means and standard deviations were extracted or imputed to allow the analysis of weighted mean difference. Weighted mean difference using a random effects model was selected when outcomes were measured on standard scales. A fixed effects model was used to interpret results and assess heterogeneity. For binary data numbers of events and total population were analysed and interpreted as relative risk.
Two trials of ESWT versus placebo are included in this review (~~Rompe 1996~~, ~~Haake 2001~~). Both trials included similar study populations consisting of participants with chronic symptoms who had failed other conservative treatment. The frequency of ESWT application and the doses and techniques used were similar in both trials. The first trial demonstrated highly significant differences in favour of ESWT whereas the second trial found no benefits of ESWT over placebo. When the data from the two trials were pooled, the benefits observed in the first trial were no longer statistically significant. The relative risk for treatment failure (defined as Roles-Maudsley score of 4) of ESWT over placebo was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.08 to 1.91) at six weeks and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.09 to 2.17) at one year. After 6 weeks, there was no statistically significant improvement in pain at rest [WMD pain out of 100 = - 11.40 (95% CI, -26.10 to 3.30)], pain with resisted wrist extension [WMD pain out of 100 = -16.20 (95% CI, -47.75 to 15.36)] or pain with resisted middle finger extension [WMD pain out of 100 = -20.51(95% CI, -56.57 to 15.56)]. Results after 12 or 24 weeks were similar.
The two trials included in this review yielded conflicting results. Further trials are needed to clarify the value of ESWT for lateral elbow pain.
Lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) is a frequently reported condition. A wide variety of treatment strategies has been described. As of yet, no optimal strategy has been identified.
To assess the effectiveness of orthotic devices for the treatment of tennis elbow.
We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, Current Contents up to May 1999 and reference lists from all retrieved articles. Experts on the subjects were approached for additional trials.
All randomised clinical trials (RCT) describing individuals with diagnosed lateral epicondylitis and comparing the use of an orthotic device as a treatment strategy were evaluated for inclusion.
Two reviewers independently assessed the validity of the included trials and extracted data on relevant outcome measures. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as Relative Risks (RRs) and continuous outcomes as Standardised Mean Differences (SMD), both with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Statistical pooling and subgroup analyses were intended
Five RCTs (N per group 7-49) were included. Validity score ranged from 3-9 positive items out of 11. Subgroup analyses were not performed due to the small number of trials. The limited number of included trials present few outcome measures and limited long-term results. Pooling was not possible due to large heterogeneity amongst trials.
No definitive conclusions can be drawn concerning effectiveness of orthotic devices for lateral epicondylitis. More well-designed and well-conducted RCTs of sufficient power are warranted.
In a prospective randomized study of lateral epicondylitis, 120 patients were treated with 2 mL lidocaine (Group A, n=60) or 1 mL lidocaine combined with 1 mL triamcinolone (Group B, n=60). All injections were done using the peppering technique: after inserting the needle the tender area was peppered with 40 to 50 injections by injecting, withdrawing, redirecting, and reinserting without emerging from the skin. All patients were followed up for 1 year. Fifty-six patients in Group A and 57 patients in Group B had excellent results. There was statistically no difference between the groups. Both groups had excellent results and because the injection of local anesthetics is known to have no long-term effect in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis, the peppering technique seems to be a reliable method of treatment.
Surgical treatment is considered the last option for chronic tennis elbow. The purpose of this pilot study was to compare treatment with botulinum toxin infiltration of the wrist extensor, a less invasive method, with a surgical wrist extensor release (Hohmann operation). Forty patients were included in the prospective randomized study; one group of patients had surgery (n = 20), the other group of patients was treated with botulinum toxin (n = 20). The results of evaluations after 3, 6, 12, and 24 months are presented. One year after treatment 13 (65%) patients in the botulinum toxin group and 15 (75%) patients in the operative group had good to excellent results. Two years after treatment 15 patients in the botulinum toxin group (75%) had good to excellent results; four patients had been operated on after initial treatment with botulinum toxin Type A. Seventeen patients in the operative group scored good to excellent (85%) at 2 years. When analyzed with an overall scoring system, no differences were found between the two forms of treatment. Botulinum toxin infiltration, a less invasive technique, may be an alternative for surgical treatment of tennis elbow.
We undertook a prospective, randomised study to compare the analgesic effect of injection of steroid and of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT) for the treatment of tennis elbow. Group 1 received a single injection of 20 mg of triamcinolone with lignocaine while group 2 received 2000 shock waves in three sessions at weekly intervals. After six weeks there was a significant difference between the groups with the mean pain score for the injection group falling from 66 to 21 compared with a decrease from 61 to 35 in the shock-wave group (p = 0.05). After three months, 84% of patients in group 1 were considered to have had successful treatment compared with 60% in group 2. In the medium term local injection of steroid is more successful and 100 times less expensive than ESWT in the treatment of tennis elbow.
On the basis of observational trials, numerous investigators have recommended extracorporeal shock wave therapy as an alternative treatment for chronic lateral epicondylitis of the elbow. However, there has been no evidence of its efficacy from well-designed randomized clinical trials. The objective of this study was to find out whether extracorporeal shock wave therapy in combination with local anesthesia was superior to placebo therapy in combination with local anesthesia.
A randomized multicenter trial with a parallel-group design was conducted. Following administration of local anesthesia, either extracorporeal shock wave therapy with three treatments of 2000 pulses each and a positive energy flux density (ED+) of 0.07 to 0.09 mJ/mm (2) or placebo therapy was applied on an outpatient basis. Treatment allocation was blinded for patients and for observers. The primary end point was based on the rate of success, as determined with the Roles and Maudsley score and whether additional treatment was required, twelve weeks after the intervention. Crossover was possible after assessment of the primary end point. Secondary end points were the Roles and Maudsley score, subjective pain rating, and grip strength after six and twelve weeks and after twelve months. The planned number of 272 patients was included in the study.
The primary end point could be assessed for 90.8% of the patients. The success rate was 25.8% in the group treated with extracorporeal shock wave therapy and 25.4% in the placebo group, a difference of 0.4% with a 95% confidence interval of -10.5% to 11.3%. Similarly, there was no relevant difference between groups with regard to the secondary end points. Improvement was observed in two-thirds of the patients from both groups twelve months after the intervention. Few side effects were reported.
Extracorporeal shock wave therapy as applied in the present study was ineffective in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. The previously reported success of this therapy appears to be attributable to inappropriate study designs. Different application protocols might improve clinical outcome. We recommend that extracorporeal shock wave therapy be applied only in high-quality clinical trials until it is proved to be effective.
Most nonsurgical treatments for lateral epicondylitis have focused on suppressing an inflammatory process that does not actually exist in conditions of tendinosis. An injection of autologous blood might provide the necessary cellular and humoral mediators to induce a healing cascade. The purpose of this study was to evaluate prospectively the results of refractory lateral epicondylitis treated with autologous blood injections.
Twenty-eight patients with lateral epicondylitis were injected with 2 mL of autologous blood under the extensor carpi radialis brevis. All patients had failed previous nonsurgical treatments including all or combinations of physical therapy, splinting, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication, and prior steroid injections. Patients kept personal logs and rated their pain (0-10) and categorized themselves according to Nirschl staging (0-7) daily.
The average follow-up period was 9.5 months (range, 6-24 mo). After autologous blood injections the average pain score decreased from 7.8 to 2.3. The average Nirschl stage decreased from 6.5 to 2.0. For the 9 patients receiving more than one blood injection the mean pain score and Nirschl stage before injection were 7.2 and 6.6, respectively. After the second blood injection the pain and Nirschl scores were both 0.9. Two patients received a third blood injection that brought both pain and Nirschl scores to 0.
After autologous blood injection therapy 22 patients (79%) in whom nonsurgical modalities had failed were relieved completely of pain even during strenuous activity. This study offers encouraging results of an alternative minimally invasive treatment that addresses the pathophysiology of lateral epicondylitis that has failed traditional nonsurgical modalities.
To determine the efficacy of using splinting as a treatment for lateral epicondylitis (LE), a systematic review of the literature was conducted on Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, PEDro, and Cochrane databases using pertinent key words and phrases. Hand searches of article references were also used to ensure that as many relevant articles as possible were identified. Searches were limited to articles published in English. Articles that did not involve splinting (or terminology derivative thereof) as treatment intervention for LE were excluded. From 98 potential articles, 58 were considered strong inclusion candidates. These articles were copied and further triaged according to predefined criteria, resulting in 22 articles that were numbered randomly and blinded. Three reviewers appraised these articles, eliminating 11 of the articles because they did not meet essential criteria of randomization, control group, and/or inferential statistical analysis. Using MacDermid quality scores, the 11 remaining articles were rated by three reviewers. Consensus between the three reviewers was achieved for all quality scores for all 11 articles included in the review. Adjusted quality scores ranged from 44.5 to 16.5 with a mean of 26.3 points. For accurate comparison and consistency of terminology, splints described in the included articles were first classified according to the ASHT Splint Classification, expanded and refined version, and next according to their inherent material properties. Six splints in five classification categories were identified. Discussion of the results from the 11 included studies was organized according to splint category and further separated into strength, pain, and load applied sections. This review identified one Sackett level 1b study and ten Sackett level 2b studies that offer early positive, but not conclusive, support for the effectiveness of splinting lateral epicondylitis. None of the reviewed studies received a perfect quality score, and the wide range of quality scores attests to the fact that considerable improvement of future studies is essential.
Lateral epicondyle pain is a common complaint in North America. In the past 10 yr acupuncture has become increasingly recognized as an alternative treatment for pain, including epicondyle pain. This review evaluates the effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment for lateral epicondylitis using the appropriate analysis.
Online bibliographic database searches in any language from Medline, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Healthstar, PMID, CAM, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review (3rd quarter 2003), articles listed in reference lists of key articles and the author's personal files were performed. Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials examining the effects of acupuncture on lateral epicondyle pain were selected. From the six studies that met inclusion criteria, the first author, year of publication, population studied, dropout rate, treatment plan, assessment scale and outcome measures were extracted. Study quality was determined by using the Jadad scale, in which all studies were rated as high quality. A best evidence synthesis approach was used to analyse the data presented in the six studies.
All the studies suggested that acupuncture was effective in the short-term relief of lateral epicondyle pain. Five of six studies indicated that acupuncture treatment was more effective compared to a control treatment.
There is strong evidence suggesting that acupuncture is effective in the short-term relief of lateral epicondyle pain.
Chronic radial epicondylitis (tennis elbow) is not a serious disease but patients may suffer greatly. If standard conservative and possibly operative treatment modalities have not been effective, patients need further therapy. First trials with injection of Botulinum toxin A (Btx A) have shown promising results. The purpose of the study was to clarify if a single injection of Btx A could be an efficient therapy for chronic radial epicondylitis.
In this study 16 patients received injections into the forearm extensors. The site of injection was determined by local tenderness and pain provocation on finger and wrist extension.
A significant clinical improvement was already seen at 2 weeks following injection. The effect was noted up to the last follow-up at 2 years. Continuous and maximal pain during the last 48 h, as self-assessed on a visual analogue scale, was also significantly reduced. In a few cases a significant decrease of muscle strength was seen for the third finger two weeks after injection. It slowly returned thereafter.
A single injection of Btx A was effective as therapy for chronic tennis elbow. It can be carried out in an out-patient setting, and allows the patient to continue working.
A recent report has suggested that local injection of botulinum toxin type A is an effective method of treatment for chronic tennis elbow. The toxin is thought to provide temporary paralysis of the painful common extensor origin, thereby allowing a healing response to occur. To test this theory, we performed a double-blind, randomized, controlled, pilot trial comparing injections of botulinum toxin type A with those of a placebo (normal saline solution) in the treatment of chronic tennis elbow.
Forty patients with a history of chronic tennis elbow for which all conservative treatment measures, including steroid injection, had failed were randomized into two groups. Half the patients received 50 units of botulinum toxin type A, and the remainder received normal saline solution. The intramuscular injections were performed 5 cm distal to the maximum point of tenderness at the lateral epicondyle, in line with the middle of the wrist. The two solutions used for the injections were identical in appearance and temperature. The results of a quality-of-life assessment with the Short Form-12 (SF-12), the pain score on a visual analogue scale, and the grip strength measured with a validated Jamar dynamometer were recorded before and three months after the injection.
Three months following the injections, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to grip strength, pain, or quality of life.
With the numbers studied, we failed to find a significant difference between the two groups; thus, we have no evidence of a benefit from botulinum toxin injection in the treatment of chronic tennis elbow.
The use of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis is controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of extracorporeal shock wave therapy without local anesthesia to treat chronic lateral epicondylitis.
One hundred and fourteen patients with a minimum six-month history of lateral epicondylitis that was unresponsive to conventional therapy were randomized into double-blind active treatment and placebo groups. The protocol consisted of three weekly treatments of either low-dose shock wave therapy without anesthetic or a sham treatment. Patients had a physical examination, including provocation testing and dynamometry, at one, four, eight, and twelve weeks and at six and twelve months after treatment. Radiographs, laboratory studies, and electrocardiograms were also evaluated prior to participation and at twelve weeks. A visual analog scale was used to evaluate pain, and an upper extremity functional scale was used to assess function. Crossover to active treatment was initiated for nonresponsive patients who had received the placebo and met the inclusion criteria after twelve weeks.
A total of 108 of the 114 randomized patients completed all treatments and the twelve weeks of follow-up required by the protocol. Sixty-one patients completed one year of follow-up, whereas thirty-four patients crossed over to receive active treatment. A significant difference (p = 0.001) in pain reduction was observed at twelve weeks in the intent-to-treat cohort, with an improvement in the pain score of at least 50% seen in 61% (thirty-four) of the fifty-six patients in the active treatment group who were treated according to protocol compared with 29% (seventeen) of the fifty-eight subjects in the placebo group. This improvement persisted in those followed to one year. Functional activity scores, activity-specific evaluation, and the overall impression of the disease state all showed significant improvement as well (p < 0.05). Crossover patients also showed significant improvement after twelve weeks of active treatment, with 56% (nineteen of thirty-four) achieving an improvement in the pain score of at least 50% (p < 0.0001).
These results demonstrate that low-dose shock wave therapy without anesthetic is a safe and effective treatment for chronic lateral epicondylitis.
This review is one in a series of reviews of interventions for lateral elbow pain.
To determine the effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) for lateral elbow pain.
Searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index (SCISEARCH) were conducted in February 2005, unrestricted by date.
We included nine trials that randomised 1006 participants to ESWT or placebo and one trial that randomised 93 participants to ESWT or steroid injection.
For each trial two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality and extracted data. Methodological quality criteria included appropriate randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, number lost to follow up and intention to treat analysis. Where appropriate, pooled analyses were performed. If there was significant heterogeneity between studies or the data reported did not allow statistical pooling, individual trial results were described in the text.
Eleven of the 13 pooled analyses found no significant benefit of ESWT over placebo. For example, the weighted mean difference for improvement in pain (on a 100-point scale) from baseline to 4-6 weeks from a pooled analysis of three trials (446 participants) was -9.42 (95% CI -20.70 to 1.86) and the weighted mean difference for improvement in pain (on a 100-point scale) provoked by resisted wrist extension (Thomsen test) from baseline to 12 weeks from a pooled analysis of three trials (455 participants) was -9.04 (95% CI -19.37 to 1.28). Two pooled results favoured ESWT. For example, the pooled relative risk of treatment success (at least 50% improvement in pain with resisted wrist extension at 12 weeks) for ESWT in comparison to placebo from a pooled analysis of two trials (192 participants) was 2.2 (95% CI 1.55 to 3.12). However this finding was not supported by the results of four other individual trials that were unable to be pooled. Steroid injection was more effective than ESWT at 3 months after the end of treatment assessed by a reduction of pain of 50% from baseline (21/25 (84%) versus 29/48 (60%), p<0.05). Minimal adverse effects of ESWT were reported. Most commonly these were transient pain, reddening of the skin and nausea and in most cases did not require treatment discontinuation or dosage adjustment.
Based upon systematic review of nine placebo-controlled trials involving 1006 participants, there is "Platinum" level evidence that shock wave therapy provides little or no benefit in terms of pain and function in lateral elbow pain. There is "Silver" level evidence based upon one trial involving 93 participants that steroid injection may be more effective than ESWT.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of eccentric strengthening. Ninety-four subjects (50 men) with chronic lateral epicondylitis were allocated randomly into three groups: stretching, concentric strengthening with stretching, and eccentric strengthening with stretching. Subjects performed an exercise program for six weeks. All three groups received instruction on icing, stretching, and avoidance of aggravating activities. The strengthening groups received instruction on isolated concentric and eccentric wrist extensor strengthening, respectively. At six weeks, significant gains were made in all three groups as assessed with pain-free grip strength, Patient-rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, Short Form 36, and visual analog pain scale. No significant differences in outcome measures were noted among the three groups. Although there were no significant differences in outcome among the groups, eccentric strengthening did not cause subjects to worsen. Further studies are needed to assess the unique effects of a more intense or longer eccentric strengthening program for patients with lateral epicondylitis.
To determine the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) for lateral elbow pain.
Systematic review of randomized controlled trials using Cochrane Collaboration methodology.
Nine placebo-controlled trials (1006 participants) and one trial of ESWT versus steroid injection (93 participants) were included. The 9 placebo-controlled trials reported conflicting results, although 11 of 13 pooled analyses found no significant benefit of ESWT over placebo, e.g., weighted mean difference for improvement in pain (on a 100-point scale) from baseline to 4-6 weeks (pooled analysis of 3 trials, 446 participants) was -9.42 (95% CI -20.70 to 1.86). Two pooled results favored ESWT, e.g., relative risk of treatment success (at least 50% improvement in pain with resisted wrist extension at 12 weeks) for ESWT in comparison to placebo (pooled analysis of 2 trials, 192 participants) was 2.2 (95% CI 1.55 to 3.12). However, this finding was not supported by the results of 4 other trials that were unable to be pooled. Steroid injection was more effective than ESWT at 3 months after the end of treatment assessed by a reduction of pain of 50% from baseline [21/25 (84%) vs 29/48 (60%); p < 0.05]. Minimal adverse effects of ESWT were reported.
Based upon systematic review of 9 placebo-controlled trials, there is "platinum" level evidence that ESWT provides little or no benefit in terms of pain and function in lateral elbow pain. There is "silver" level evidence based upon one trial that steroid injection may be more effective than ESWT.
Radial epicondylitis (tennis elbow) is the most frequent type of myotendinosis. Patients can experience substantial loss of function, especially when this condition becomes chronic. A successful therapy has not yet been established. A preliminary study of injections of botulinum toxin A in patients with chronic epicondylitis has shown promising results.
In the present prospective, controlled, double-blinded clinical trial, 130 patients were examined at sixteen study centers. A single injection of botulinum toxin A into the painful origin of the forearm extensor muscles was performed. Follow-up examinations were performed at two, six, twelve, and eighteen weeks. Clinical findings were documented with use of a new clinical pain score and with a visual analogue scale. A global assessment of the result of treatment was also provided by the patient and the attending doctor. Strength of extension of the third finger and the wrist was evaluated with use of the Brunner method, and grip strength (fist closure strength) was measured with a vigorimeter.
The group treated with botulinum toxin A was found to have a significant improvement in the clinical findings, compared with those in the placebo group, as early as the second week after injection (p = 0.003). Subjective general assessment also showed improvement in that group, compared with the placebo group, at six weeks (p = 0.001) and at the time of the final examination (at eighteen weeks) (p = 0.001). There was a consistent increase in fist closure strength in both the group treated with botulinum toxin A and the control group, but there was no significant difference between groups. As was expected as a side effect, extension of the third finger was observed to be significantly weakened at two weeks but this complication had completely resolved at eighteen weeks.
We concluded that local injection of botulinum toxin A is a beneficial treatment for radial epicondylitis (tennis elbow). The treatment can be performed in an outpatient setting and does not impair the patient's ability to work.
(1) Electrohydraulic, electromagnetic, or piezoelectric devices are used to translate energy into acoustic waves during extracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESWT) for chronic lateral epicondylitis (CLE) of the elbow (elbow tendonitis or tennis elbow). These waves may help to accelerate the healing process via an unknown mechanism. (2) Results from randomized controlled trials have been conflicting. Half of the studies showed statistically significant improvement in pain in the treatment group, and half of the studies had data showing no benefit over placebo for any measured outcomes. (3) Limited evidence shows that ESWT is cheaper than arthroscopic surgery, open surgery, and other conservative therapies, such as steroid infiltrations and physiotherapy, that continue for more than six weeks. (4) The lack of convincing evidence regarding its effectiveness does not support the use of ESWT for CLE.
For the minority of people with lateral epicondylitis who do not respond to nonoperative treatment, surgical intervention is an option, but confusion exists because of the plethora of options. The surgical techniques for treating lateral epicondylitis can be grouped into three main categories: open, percutaneous, and arthroscopic. Our primary question was whether there was clear evidence suggesting one of these three approaches was superior in relieving pain, restoring strength, or reducing time to return to work. A 2002 Cochrane Collaboration Database review found no conclusions could be drawn regarding the efficacy of operative treatment given the lack of controlled trials. Although there is not enough literature to conduct a meta-analysis, we systematically reviewed the available literature to address our questions. Although there are advantages and disadvantages to each procedure, no technique appears superior by any measure. Therefore, until more randomized, controlled trials are done, it is reasonable to defer to individual surgeons regarding experience and ease of procedure.
The Oxford Levels of Evidence are now routinely assigned at many orthopaedic journals. One disadvantage of this approach is that study designs with a higher level of evidence may be given greater weight than the overall quality of the study merits. In other words, there is no guarantee that research is scientifically valid simply because a more sophisticated study design was employed. The aim of this study was to review Level-I and II therapeutic studies on lateral epicondylitis to measure variation in quality among the highest-level study designs.
Fifty-four prospective randomized therapeutic trials involving patients with lateral epicondylitis were evaluated by two independent reviewers according to the Oxford Levels of Evidence, a modification of the Coleman Methodology Score (a 0 to 100-point scale), and the revised CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) score.
The two reviewers were consistent in their use of the Oxford Levels of Evidence (kappa = 0.73, p < 0.01), the modified Coleman Methodology Score (kappa = 0.73; p < 0.01), and the CONSORT score (kappa = 0.53; p < 0.01). Both reviewers rated the majority of studies as Level II (91% and 94%) and as unsatisfactory according to the Coleman Methodology Score (87% and 89%) and the CONSORT score (62% and 63%). Areas of deficiency included poor descriptions of recruitment (>90% of the trials), power-level calculations (73%), randomization (58%), blinding (90%), and participant flow (50%) as well as inadequate follow-up, sample size, and blinding.
The use of the gold-standard trial design, the prospective randomized therapeutic study (Level-I or II evidence), does not ensure quality research or reporting. Critical analysis of scientific work is important regardless of the study design. Clinical scientists should be familiar with the CONSORT criteria and adhere to them when reporting clinical trials.
Lateral epicondylitis is a painful and functionally limiting entity affecting the upper extremity and is frequently treated by hand surgeons. The anatomic basis of the injury to the extensor carpi radialis brevis origin appears to be multifaceted, involving hypovascular zones, eccentric tendon stresses, and a microscopic degenerative response. Although many treatments have been advocated, there is little clear consensus on which modality works best, for both conservative and operative options. In this article, we present an overview of this difficult problem and an evidence-based review of treatment choices.
Acupuncture for lateral elbow pain.
- Green S.
- Buchbinder R.
- Barnsley L.
- Hall S.
- White M.
- Smidt N.
Treatment of chronic radial epicondylitis with botulinum toxin A.
- Placzek R.
- Drescher W.
- Deuretzbacher G.
- Hempfing A.
- Meiss A.L.
Orthotic devices for the treatment of tennis elbow.
- Struijs P.A.
- Smidt N.
- Arola H.
- Dijk C.N.
- Buchbinder R.
- Assendelft W.J.
Botulinum toxin injection in the treatment of tennis elbow.
- Hayton M.J.
- Santini A.J.
- Hughes P.J.
- Frostick S.P.
- Trail I.A.
- Stanley J.K.
Surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review
- Lo
Acupuncture for lateral elbow pain
- Green
Quality of prospective controlled randomized trials
- Cowan
Botulinum toxin injection in the treatment of tennis elbow
- Hayton