https://www.physio-pedia.com/images/9/9e/Smidt_et_al_RCT_lateral_elbow.pdf

Corticosteroid injections, physiotherapy, or a wait-and-see policy for lateral epicondylitis: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) is a common complaint, for which corticosteroid injections are a frequently applied therapy. However, there were no up-to-date reviews available that systematically addressed the effectiveness and adverse effects, including questions concerning optimal timing of injections and composition of the injection fluid. AIM: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of corticosteroid injections in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) by systematic review of the available randomized clinical trials. DATA SOURCES: The data sources used were randomized clinical trials identified by literature searches of the MedLine (1966-1994) and Embase (Exerpta Medica) (1980-1994) databases for the keywords epicondylitis, tendinitis and elbow, injection. References given in relevant publications were further examined. STUDY SELECTION: The criteria for selecting studies were as follows: randomized clinical trials (treatment allocation in random or alternate order); one of the treatments to include one or more corticosteroid injections (additional interventions were allowed); participants suffering from lateral epicondylitis; and publication in English, German or Dutch. Abstracts and unpublished studies were not included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Methodological quality was assessed by means of a standardized criteria list (range 1-100 points). The extracted outcomes were the general conclusion drawn by the authors of the reports on the trials, and the success rates at the various follow-up points as (re)calculated by us. The success rates were subsequently graphically displayed and statistically pooled. Separate stratified analyses were conducted according to a predetermined analysis plan. RESULTS: Twelve randomized clinical trials were identified. The median methodological score was 40 points, indicating an overall poor to moderate quality. The pooled analysis indicated short-term effectiveness (2-6 weeks): pooled odds ratio (OR) = 0.15 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10-0.23], chi 2 [degrees of freedom (df = 5) = 13.3], indicating statistical heterogeneity. At longer term follow-up, no difference could be detected. The studies of better methodological quality indicated more favourable results than those of lesser methodological quality. The most suitable corticosteroid to use as well as dosage, injection interval and injection volume could not be derived from the various trials. CONCLUSION: The existing evidence on corticosteroid injections for the treatment of tennis elbow is not conclusive. Many trials were conducted in a secondary care setting and clearly had serious methodological flaws, and there was statistical heterogeneity among the trials. Corticosteroid injections appear to be relatively safe and seem to be effective in the short term (2-6 weeks). Although the treatment seems to be suitable for application in general practice, further trials in this setting are needed. As yet, questions regarding the optimal timing, dosage, injection technique and injection volume remain unanswered.

/pdf/corticosteroid-injections-for-lateral-epicondylitis-a-2j9zde81ou.pdf

Corticosteroid injections for lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review.

A systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of physical interventions for lateral epicondylalgia (tennis elbow) was carried out. Seventy six randomised controlled trials were identified, 28 of which satisfied the minimum criteria for meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that extracorporeal shock wave therapy is not beneficial in the treatment of tennis elbow. There is a lack of evidence for the long term benefit of physical interventions in general. However, further research with long term follow up into manipulation and exercise as treatments is indicated.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/39/7/411.full.pdf

A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on physical interventions for lateral epicondylalgia

Purpose: 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. Method: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. (J Hand Surg 2003;28A:272-278. Copyright © 2003 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand.)

Autologous blood injections for refractory lateral epicondylitis.

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.

/pdf/analgesic-effect-of-extracorporeal-shock-wave-therapy-on-4sezzac8bi.pdf

Analgesic effect of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy on chronic tennis elbow

Orthopaedic Service, Sainte-Justine Hospital, 3175 C#{244}teSainte-Catherine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3T 1C5.R.Guibert, MD, MSc, Assistant Professor, Department ofFamilyMedicine and Researcher Groupe deRecherche Interdisciplinaire enSanteUniversity ofMontreal, P0 Box 6128-Succ. A,Montreal, Quebec,Canada H3C 3J7.N.Newman, MD, FRCS C,Assistant ProfessorofSurgery, UniversityofMontrealH#{244}tel-Dieu Hospital, 3840 Sainte-Urbain Street, Montreal, Quebec,CanadaH2W lT8.M.Fallaha, MD, FRCS C,Assistant Professor ofSurgery, UniversityofMontrealMaisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, 5415 L’Assomption Boulevard,

Lack of scientific evidence for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis of the elbow

We have reviewed 185 articles published since 1966 to assess the scientific evidence for methods of treatment for lateral epicondylitis of the elbow. Of the 185 articles, 78 discussed treatment, but since the natural history of the syndrome is uncertain we considered only those series with concurrent control groups. Only 18 of these were randomised and controlled studies. We then graded these papers for scientific validity, using the methods of Chalmers et al (1981). The mean score of the 18 articles was only 33%, with a range from 6% to 73%. A minimum of 70% is required for a valid clinical trial, and we therefore concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support any of the current methods of treatment. There were too many methodological differences to allow a quantitative meta-analysis, but our qualitative review established the importance of the natural evolution of the syndrome and of the placebo effect of all treatments. Properly designed, controlled trials are needed.

M. Fallaha

Papers

Lack of scientific evidence for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis of the elbow

Lack of scientific evidence for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis of the elbow. An attempted meta-analysis