Manual therapy and exercise for lateral elbow pain.

BACKGROUND: Manual therapy and prescribed exercises are often provided together or separately in contemporary clinical practice to treat people with lateral elbow pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both for adults with lateral elbow pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and trial registries until 31 January 2024, unrestricted by language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Participants were adults with lateral elbow pain. Interventions were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both. Primary comparators were placebo or minimal or no intervention. We also included comparisons of manual therapy and prescribed exercises with either intervention alone, with or without glucocorticoid injection. Exclusions were trials testing a single application of an intervention or comparison of different types of manual therapy or prescribed exercises. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and numerical data, and assessed study risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The main comparisons were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both compared with placebo treatment, and with minimal or no intervention. Major outcomes were pain, disability, heath-related quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, participant withdrawals, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint was end of intervention for pain, disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success and final time point for adverse events and withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three trials (1612 participants) met our inclusion criteria (mean age ranged from 38 to 52 years, 47% female, 70% dominant arm affected). One trial (23 participants) compared manual therapy to placebo manual therapy, 12 trials (1124 participants) compared manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to minimal or no intervention, six trials (228 participants) compared manual therapy and exercise to exercise alone, one trial (60 participants) compared the addition of manual therapy to prescribed exercises and glucocorticoid injection, and four trials (177 participants) assessed the addition of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to glucocorticoid injection. Twenty-one trials without placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection bias as participants were not blinded to the intervention. Other biases included selection (nine trials, 39%, including two quasi-randomised), attrition (eight trials, 35%) and selective reporting (15 trials, 65%) biases. We report the results of the main comparisons. Manual therapy versus placebo manual therapy Low-certainty evidence, based upon a single trial (23 participants) and downgraded due to indirectness and imprecision, indicates manual therapy may reduce pain and elbow disability at the end of two to three weeks of treatment. Mean pain at the end of treatment was 4.1 points with placebo (0 to 10 scale) and 2.0 points with manual therapy, MD -2.1 points (95% CI -4.2 to -0.1). Mean disability was 40 points with placebo (0 to 100 scale) and 15 points with manual therapy, MD -25 points (95% CI -43 to -7). There was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment to show if these effects were sustained, and no other major outcomes were reported. Manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both versus minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence indicates manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but the effects were not sustained, and there may be little to no improvement in health-related quality of life or number of participants reporting treatment success. We downgraded the evidence due to increased risk of performance bias and detection bias across all the trials, and indirectness due to the multimodal nature of the interventions included in the trials. At four weeks to three months, mean pain was 5.10 points with minimal treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced pain by a MD of -0.53 points (95% CI -0.92 to -0.14, I2 = 43%; 12 trials, 1023 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean disability was 63.8 points with minimal or no treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced disability by a MD of -5.00 points (95% CI -9.22 to -0.77, I2 = 63%; 10 trials, 732 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean quality of life was 73.04 points with minimal treatment on a 0 to 100 scale and prescribed exercises reduced quality of life by a MD of -5.58 points (95% CI -10.29 to -0.99; 2 trials, 113 participants). Treatment success was reported by 42% of participants with minimal or no treatment and 57.1% of participants with manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both, RR 1.36 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.93, I2 = 73%; 6 trials, 770 participants). We are uncertain if manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both results in more withdrawals or adverse events. There were 83/566 participant withdrawals (147 per 1000) from the minimal or no intervention group, and 77/581 (126 per 1000) from the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.12, I2 = 0%; 12 trials). Adverse events were mild and transient and included pain, bruising and gastrointestinal events, and no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events were reported by 19/224 (85 per 1000) in the minimal treatment group and 70/233 (313 per 1000) in the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 3.69 (95% CI 0.98 to 13.97, I2 = 72%; 6 trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence from a single trial in people with lateral elbow pain indicates that, compared with placebo, manual therapy may provide a clinically worthwhile benefit in terms of pain and disability at the end of treatment, although the 95% confidence interval also includes both an important improvement and no improvement, and the longer-term outcomes are unknown. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials indicates that manual therapy and exercise may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but this may not be clinically worthwhile and these benefits are not sustained. While pain after treatment was an adverse event from manual therapy, the number of events was too small to be certain.

Clinical and Ultrasonographic Effectiveness of Two Different Splints Used for the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study compares the clinical and ultrasonographic efficacy of 2 splint types, the lateral epicondylitis band (LEB) and the wrist extensor splint (WES), for treatment of lateral epicondylitis (LE). DESIGN: Randomized controlled single-blind trial. SETTING: Outpatient clinic. PARTICIPANTS: 159 participants diagnosed with unilateral LE based on clinical and ultrasonographic findings, and 2-12 weeks from symptom onset, were included (N=159). INTERVENTIONS: One group received joint-protection education-only (wait-and-see), while the other 2 groups were fit with splints: one the LEB and the other the WES. Both splint groups received joint-protection education. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, hand grip strength by dynamometry, algometric measurements, patient satisfaction, and selected ultrasonographic parameters (maximum tendon thickness measurements (MTTM) in the capitellar-radiocapitellar region and total ultrasonography scale score [TUSS]). All outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3-weeks, and 6-weeks post intervention initiation. RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 46.85±8.63 years. Of the participants, 40.88% (n=65) were male and 59.12% (n=94) were female. The baseline median (1Q-3Q) values of PRTEE-total scores were 58.5 (51-68) for the LEB, 63.5 (56.25-70.25) for the WES and 57 (48-68) for the education-only groups. At 6-weeks, the PRTEE-total scores had decreased by 44 points for those randomized to the LEB, 46 points to the WES and 7 points in the education-only groups(P<.001). While the LEB and WES approaches were superior to the wait-and-see approach in algometric measurements, VAS, and PRTEE scores (P<.05), no significant changes were found in MTTM and TUSS values. The LEB group was superior to the WES group in hand grip strength and patient satisfaction (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Using either splint for 6 weeks can be considered effective for the relief of pain and increased functionality in persons with subacute LE, although the LEB had a more positive effect on grip strength and patient satisfaction than the WES.

Comparative analysis of the therapeutic effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and high-intensity laser therapy in lateral epicondylitis: a randomised clinical trial.

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) presents a substantial obstacle due to the pain and functional decline, frequently requiring non-surgical treatments. This study contrasts the efficacy of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in managing LE. A prospective, randomized comparative trial was conducted with 50 participants assigned to either HILT or ESWT groups. Both groups received standard physiotherapy (exercise program and LE bandages), and outcomes, including tenderness, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scale (Q-DASH), and grip strength, were assessed at baseline, 3rd weeks, and 12th weeks. The baseline features of the groups exhibited similarities (p > 0.05). In intra-group comparisons, both HILT and ESWT groups exhibited significant enhancements in tenderness, VAS, Q-DASH, and grip strength (p < 0.05). In inter-group comparisons, the HILT group exhibited superior outcomes in tenderness reduction, pain alleviation, and disability improvement compared to the ESWT group (p < 0.05). Grip strength did not differ significantly across the groups (p > 0.05). Both HILT and ESWT, when combined with standard physiotherapy, showed effectiveness in treating LE. However, HILT demonstrated greater efficacy in terms of tenderness reduction, pain relief, and disability improvement. This study suggests that non-invasive techniques, particularly HILT, can be preferable for managing LE.

Percutaneous tendon dry needling and thrust manipulation as an adjunct to multimodal physical therapy in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy: A multicenter randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of adding electrical dry needling and thrust manipulation into a multimodal program of exercise, mobilization, and ultrasound in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy. DESIGN: Randomized, single-blinded, multicenter, parallel-group trial. SETTING: Thirteen outpatient physical therapy clinics in nine different US states. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and forty-three participants (n = 143) with lateral elbow tendinopathy were randomized. INTERVENTION: Cervical spine manipulation, extremity manipulation, and percutaneous tendon electrical dry needling plus multimodal physical therapy (n = 73) or multimodal physical therapy (n = 70) alone. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was elbow pain intensity and disability as measured by the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 3 months. Secondary outcomes included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Tennis Elbow Functional Scale, Global Rating of Change, and medication intake. RESULTS: The 2 × 4 analysis of covariance demonstrated that individuals with lateral elbow tendinopathy receiving electrical dry needling and thrust manipulation plus multimodal physical therapy experienced significantly greater improvements in disability (Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation: F = 19.675; P < 0.001), elbow pain intensity (Numeric Pain Rating Scale: F = 22.769; P < 0.001), and function (Tennis Elbow Function Scale: F = 13.269; P < 0.001) than those receiving multimodal physical therapy alone at 3 months. The between-group effect size was large for pain and disability (Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation: standardized mean difference = 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.78, 1.48) in favor of the electrical dry needling and thrust manipulation group. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of percutaneous tendon electrical dry needling and thrust manipulation into a multimodal program of exercise, mobilization and ultrasound was more effective than multimodal physical therapy alone in individuals with lateral elbow tendinopathy.Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT03167710 May 30, 2017.

In the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis by Percutaneous Perforation, Injectables Have No Added Value.

BACKGROUND: No single injection therapy has been proven to be superior in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. In most studies, the injection technique is not standardized, which makes it challenging to compare outcomes. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does injection with autologous blood, dextrose, or needle perforation only at the extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon origin produce better VAS pain scores during provocation testing at 5 months of follow-up? (2) Which percutaneous technique resulted in better secondary outcome measures: VAS during rest and activity, VAS during maximum grip, Oxford elbow score (OES), QuickDASH, Patient-related Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), or EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D)? METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial performed from November 2015 to January 2020, 166 patients with lateral epicondylitis were included and assigned to one of the three treatment groups: autologous blood, dextrose, or perforation only. Complete follow-up data were available for the primary outcome measures at the 5-month follow-up interval for 77% (127 of 166) of patients. Injections of the extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon were conducted in an accurate and standardized way. The three groups did not differ in terms of key variables such as age, gender, duration of symptoms, smoking habits, pain medication, and physiotherapy use. Data were collected at baseline and 8 weeks, 5 months, and 1 year after treatment and compared among the groups. The primary endpoint was the VAS pain score with provocation at 5 months. Our secondary study outcomes were VAS pain scores during rest, after activity, and after maximum grip strength; functional recovery; and quality of life. Therefore, we report the VAS pain score (0 to 100, with higher scores representing more-severe pain, minimum clinically important difference [MCID] 10), OES (0 to 48, with higher scores representing more satisfactory joint function, MCID 10), QuickDASH (0 to 100, with higher scores representing more severe disability, MCID 5.3), PRTEE (0 to 100, with higher scores representing more pain or more disability, MCID 20), EQ-5D/QALY (EQ-5D sumscore 0 to 1, with the maximum score of 1 representing the best health state, MCID 0.04), and EQ-5D VAS (0 to 100, with higher scores representing the best health status, MCID 8). For analysis, one-way analysis of variance and a linear mixed-model analysis were used. The analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Four patients from the perforation group opted to crossover to autologous blood after 5 months. RESULTS: No injection therapy proved to be superior to any other in terms of VAS pain scores during the provocation test at 5 months of follow-up (VAS for perforation: 25 ± 31; autologous blood: 26 ± 27; dextrose: 29 ± 32; p = 0.35). For the secondary outcomes, only a clinically important difference was found for the QuickDASH score. Both the perforation-only group (-8 [98% CI -4 to -12]) and autologous blood (-7 points [98% CI -3 to -11]) had improved QuickDASH scores over time compared with the dextrose group (MCID 5.3; p < 0.01). For the other outcomes, no clinically important differences were found. CONCLUSION: There is no benefit to injectable autologous blood and dextrose over perforation alone to treat lateral epicondylitis, and they are therefore not indicated for this condition. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Comparison of the efficiency of peloidotherapy and extracorporeal shock wave therapies in patients diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.

Various treatment methods are used in the management of lateral epicondylitis (LE); however, there is no universally accepted standard treatment approach. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of peloidotherapy and extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) on pain, functional status, and quality of life in the treatment of LE. The study was designed as a hospital-based, prospective randomized controlled trial. Ninety patients, with a mean age of 47.30±7.95 (range, 18 to 65 years), diagnosed with chronic (3 months) unilateral LE were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. The peloidotherapy group received 15 sessions of peloid therapy for 3 weeks, 5 days a week, while the ESWT group received three sessions of ESWT (1.8 bar, 10.0 Hz, 2000 impulses) for 3 weeks, once a week. The patients were evaluated before treatment, at the end of the treatment, and one month after the treatment. The groups were compared in terms of pain, quality of life, functional status, and handgrip strength. At the end of the treatment and one-month follow-up, statistically significant improvements were observed in all parameters. This study is the first randomized trial comparing peloidotherapy to ESWT as an adjunct to exercise therapy in LE. Both ESWT and peloidotherapy, when added to exercise therapy, showed positive short-term effects on pain, quality of life, functional status, and handgrip strength in primary conservative treatment of chronic LE (p<0.001), and no superiority was found between them in terms of efficacy. Peloidotherapy or ESWT may be preferred in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis, depending on the patient's condition. Peloidotherapy appears to be more advantageous due to its lower side effects and painless nature. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04748406.

Comparison of Interventions for Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis for Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation Pain Outcome.

PURPOSE: There is controversy regarding the optimal treatment for lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET), and not all available treatment options have been compared directly with placebo/control. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of different LET treatments directly and indirectly against control/placebo based on a validated outcome, the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) pain score. METHODS: Randomized, controlled trials comparing different treatment methods for LET were included, provided they reported outcome data using the PRTEE pain score. A network meta-analysis with random effect was used to combine direct and indirect evidence between treatments compared with placebo in the short term (up to six weeks) and midterm (more than six weeks and up to six months) after intervention. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with 12 comparators including control/placebo were eligible. The results indicated no significant improvement in PRTEE pain score in the short term across all treatments compared with control/placebo. In the midterm, physiotherapy/exercise showed benefit against placebo (mean difference: -4.32, 95% confidence interval: -7.58 and -1.07). Although steroid injections, dry needling, and autologous blood also exhibited potential treatment effects, it is crucial for the clinician to consider certain pitfalls when considering these treatments. The limited number of small studies and paucity of data call for caution in interpreting the results and need for further evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Patients should be informed that there is currently no strong evidence that any treatment produces more rapid improvement in pain symptoms when compared with control/placebo in the short and medium terms. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic I.

Association between Platelet-Derived Growth Factor Receptor Alpha Gene Polymorphisms and Platelet-Rich Plasma's Efficiency in Treating Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy-A Prospective Cohort Study.

Individual differences in the response to platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy can be observed among patients. The genetic background may be the cause of this variability. The current study focused on the impact of genetic variants on the effectiveness of PRP. The aim of the present study was to analyze the impact of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) of the platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) gene on the effectiveness of treating lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) with PRP. The treatment's efficacy was analyzed over time (2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 52 and 104 weeks after the PRP injection) on 107 patients using patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and achievement of a minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Four SNPs of the PDGFRA gene (rs7668190, rs6554164, rs869978 and rs1316926) were genotyped using the TaqMan assay method. Patients with the AA genotypes of the rs7668190 and the rs1316926 polymorphisms, as well as carriers of the T allele of rs6554164 showed greater effectiveness of PRP therapy than carriers of other genotypes. Moreover, the studied SNPs influenced the platelets' parameters both in whole blood and in PRP. These results showed that PDGFRA gene polymorphisms affect the effectiveness of PRP treatment. Genotyping the rs6554164 and the rs1316926 SNPs may be considered for use in individualized patient selection for PRP therapy.

A meta-analysis of the risk factors for lateral epicondylitis.

BACKGROUND: Very few meta-analyses discussed risk factors for lateral epicondylitis (LE), and previous meta-analyses reached conflicting conclusions with each other on some specific risk factors. PURPOSE: To investigate the risk factors for LE through meta-analysis. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for relevant studies in January 2022. Raw data were extracted into a predefined worksheet, and quality analysis was conducted by the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. R package "meta" was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Female sex (odds ratio [OR]=1.33 and p-value<0.05), smoking history (OR=1.46 and p-value<0.001), manual labor (OR=2.39 and p-value<0.001), and hypercholesterolemia (OR=1.67 and p-value<0.05) were significant risk factors for LE. CONCLUSIONS: Female gender, smoking history, manual labor, and hypercholesterolemia could increase the risk of LE. According to an additional literature review, statin treatment for hypercholesterolemia is described as potentially related to the development of LE.

Effects of a Conventional Treatment Plus Scapular Exercises Program in Patients With Chronic Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy: A Pre-Post Single-Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Weakness of the shoulder girdle muscles has been reported in patients with chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy. The aim of this study was to assess the short- and long-term effects of a conventional treatment plus scapular exercises program in patients with chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy. METHODS: A single-group prestudy and poststudy were conducted. The primary outcome was the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation questionnaire score. Secondary outcomes were grip strength; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire score; Visual Analogue Scale score at rest and at grip, and presence of scapular dyskinesis. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (72.3% females), with a mean age of 41.8 years, were analyzed. At the end of 6 weeks, the results showed clinically and statistically significant differences (P < .05). At 1-year follow-up, the differences were: Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation -31 points (P < .001); grip strength +33.6% (P < .001); Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand -34.2 points (P < .001); Visual Analogue Scale at rest -2.5 cm (P < .001); and Visual Analogue Scale at grip -2.3 cm (P < .001). CONCLUSION: At the end of 6 weeks and at 1-year follow-up, conventional treatment plus scapular exercises program showed statistically and clinically significant differences in all functional outcomes assessed in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy.

Treating Lateral Epicondylopathy With Dry Needling and Exercise: A Case Series.

CONTEXT: Lateral epicondylopathy (LE) is a common overuse injury affecting elbow, wrist, and hand function. It is characterized by weakness and pain in the muscles and tendons of the forearm responsible for the extension of your wrist and fingers. Trigger point dry needling is a technique reported to be beneficial in managing pain and dysfunction after LE diagnosis. LE is also commonly treated with conservative treatment, such as joint and soft tissue mobilization, self-care home programs, and anti-inflammatory use. We explored a different dry needling approach consisting of in situ dry needling with electric stimulation combined with targeted therapeutic exercise to treat LE in 3 cases. CASE PRESENTATION: Three patients were referred for dry needling once a week for 6 weeks and home-based exercise therapy for LE. They were clinically evaluated using grip strength, a visual analog scale to assess pain, and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation Test scores. These were measured at 4 time points (weeks 0, 2, 4, and 6). MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOMES: The dry needling intervention incorporated 8 locations in the upper-extremity with 2 electric stimulation channels. The patients had reduced pain as measured by a visual analog scale, increased function as measured by the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation Test, and increased grip strength over 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: This case series illustrates the use of dry needling and a home exercise program to provide a favorable outcome in a patient with LE. Patients had an 80% to 100% reduction in pain and similar improvements in function that were significantly beyond the minimum clinically important difference. This dry needling approach is a safe and effective treatment of LE in the short term.

Comparing autologous blood, corticosteroid, and a combined injection of both for treating lateral epicondylitis: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Because lateral epicondylitis is a common musculoskeletal disorder that affects the forearm's extensor tendons, an effective therapeutic approach should reverse the degeneration and promote regeneration. This study aimed to compare the efficacies of autologous blood (AB) injection, corticosteroid (CS) injection, and a combined injection of both in treating lateral epicondylitis (LE), hypothesizing that the combined approach might offer immediate symptom resolution and a lower recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 patients diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis were systematically distributed among three distinct therapeutic injection groups. Those in the AB group were administered 1 ml of autologous venous blood mixed with 2 ml of 2% prilocaine HCl. Participants in the CS category were given 1 ml of 40 mg methylprednisolone acetate mixed with 2 ml of 2% prilocaine HCl. Meanwhile, patients in the combined group received a mixture containing 1 ml each of autologous venous blood and 40 mg methylprednisolone acetate along with 1 ml of 2% prilocaine HCl. Prior to receiving their respective injections, a comprehensive assessment of all participants was carried out. Follow-up assessments were subsequently conducted on days 15, 30, and 90 utilizing metrics of the patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE) and measurements of hand grip strength (HGS). RESULTS: One patient dropped out from the combined group, and 119 patients completed the trial. No complications were recorded during the course of follow-up. By day 15, all groups had demonstrated significant PRTEE improvement, with CS showing the most pronounced reduction (p = 0.001). However, the benefits of CS had deteriorated by day 30 and had deteriorated further by day 90. The AB and AB + CS groups demonstrated sustained improvement, with AB + CS revealing the most effective treatment, achieving a clinically significant improvement in 97.4% of the patients. The improved HGS parallelled the functional enhancements, as it was more substantial in the AB and AB + CS groups (p = 0.001), corroborating the sustained benefits of these treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The study concluded that while AB and CS individually offer distinct benefits, a combined AB + CS approach optimizes therapeutic outcomes, providing swift and sustained functional improvement with a lower recurrence rate. These findings have substantial clinical implications, suggesting a balanced, multimodal treatment strategy for enhanced patient recovery in LE. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Randomized clinical trial, level 1 evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT06236178.

Minimal important difference, patient acceptable symptom state and longitudinal validity of oxford elbow score and the quickDASH in patients with tennis elbow.

BACKGROUND: The Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and the short version of Disabilities of Arms, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) are common patient-reported outcomes for people with elbow problems. Our primary objective was to define thresholds for the Minimal Important Difference (MID) and Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the OES and QuickDASH. The secondary aim was to compare the longitudinal validity of these outcome measures. METHODS: We recruited 97 patients with clinically-diagnosed tennis elbow for a prospective observational cohort study in a pragmatic clinical setting. Fifty-five participants received no specific intervention, 14 underwent surgery (11 as primary treatment and 4 during follow-up), and 28 received either botulinum toxin injection or platelet rich plasma injection. We collected OES (0 to 100, higher is better) and QuickDASH (0 to 100, higher is worse), and global rating of change (as an external transition anchor question) at six weeks, three months, six months and 12 months. We defined MID and PASS values using three approaches. To assess the longitudinal validity of the measures, we calculated the Spearman's correlation coefficient between the change in the outcome scores and external transition anchor question, and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) from a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. To assess signal-to-noise ratio, we calculated standardized response means. RESULTS: Depending on the method, MID values ranged from 16 to 21 for OES Pain; 10 to 17 for OES Function; 14 to 28 for OES Social-psychological; 14 to 20 for OES Total score, and - 7 to -9 for QuickDASH. Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) cut offs were 74 to 84 for OES Pain; 88 to 91 for OES Function; 75 to 78 with OES Social-psychological; 80 to 81 with OES Total score and 19 to 23 with Quick-DASH. OES had stronger correlations with the anchor items, and AUC values suggested superior discrimination (between improved and not improved) compared with QuickDASH. OES also had superior signal-to-noise ratio compared with QuickDASH. CONCLUSION: The study provides MID and PASS values for OES and QuickDASH. Due to better longitudinal validity, OES may be a better choice for clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02425982 (first registered April 24, 2015).

Assessment of common extensor tendon vascularization using superb microvascular imaging: a potential tool in the evaluation of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and therapeutic ultrasound effectiveness in lateral epicondylitis.

BACKGROUND: Lateral epicondylitis, also known as tennis elbow, is the most common elbow pain in the adult age group. PURPOSE: To evaluate common extensor tendon (CET) vascularity with superb microvascular imaging (SMI) before and after extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and ultrasound (US) treatment in patients with lateral epycondylitis and to compare the effects of two different treatments on tendon vascularity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with lateral epycondylitis were divided into two groups; 30 patients were treated with ESWT (group 1) and 30 patients were treated with therapeutic US (group 2). We performed a high-frequency (14-MHz) linear array transducer to evaluate tendon anatomy and vascularity before and after treatment in both groups. RESULTS: The decrease in Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) score after treatment was statistically significant compared to pre-treatment for both groups (P < 0.001). Likewise, the decrease in visual analog scale (VAS) score after treatment was statistically significant compared to pre-treatment for both groups (P < 0.001). A significant difference was found between the CET SMI values of group 1 and group 2 after treatment, according to the chi-square test (P < 0.001). In the post-treatment VAS and PRTEE comparison of both groups, the score reduction in group 1 was higher than in group 2, and this decrease was statistically significant (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We can evaluate CET vascularization with the SMI method as a new potential diagnostic tool in comparing the effectiveness of different treatments in cases of lateral epicondylitis.

The Use of Wearable Inertial Sensors and Workplace-Based Exercises to Reduce Lateral Epicondylitis in the Workstation of a Textile Logistics Center.

People whose jobs involve repetitive motions of the wrist and forearm can suffer from lateral epicondylitis, which is a significant burden on both the individual and the employer due to treatment costs, reduced productivity, and work absenteeism. This paper describes an ergonomic intervention to reduce lateral epicondylitis in the workstation of a textile logistics center. The intervention includes workplace-based exercise programs, evaluation of risk factors, and movement correction. An injury- and subject-specific score was calculated from the motion captured with wearable inertial sensors at the workplace to evaluate the risk factors of 93 workers. Then, a new working movement was adapted to the workplace, which limited the observed risk factors and took into account the subject-specific physical abilities. The movement was taught to the workers during personalized sessions. The risk factors of 27 workers were evaluated again after the intervention to validate the effectiveness of the movement correction. In addition, active warm-up and stretching programs were introduced as part of the workday to promote muscle endurance and improve resistance to repetitive stress. The present strategy offered good results at low cost, without any physical modification of the workplace and without any detriment to productivity.

Genetic Variability in VEGFA Gene Influences the Effectiveness of Tennis Elbow Therapy with PRP: A Two-Year Prospective Cohort Study.

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is implicated in both the etiology of tendinopathy and its healing process. Polymorphic variants of the VEGFA gene exhibit varied expression, which can influence the phenotype and treatment effectiveness. The aim of the present study was to analyze the influence of VEGFA gene variants on the effectiveness of tennis elbow therapy using platelet-rich plasma (PRP), measured through common patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). A cohort of 107 patients (132 elbows) with tennis elbow was prospectively analyzed, with a two-year follow-up (at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 52, and 104 after PRP injection). PROMs values were compared between variants of five VEGFA gene polymorphisms (rs699947 A>C, rs2010963 C>G, rs1413711 C>T, rs3024998 C>T and rs3025021 C>T) at each follow-up point. Patients with genotypes GG (rs2010963) and CC (rs3024998) had better response to PRP therapy (significantly fewer symptoms and limitations in the upper limb compared to carriers of alleles C and T, respectively). Polymorphisms influenced also selected hematological parameters. VEGFA gene polymorphisms (rs2010963 and rs3024998) appear to be significant treatment modifiers for tendinopathy, and their genotyping may serve as an effective tool for personalized patient selection for PRP therapy.

Chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy with a supervised graded exercise protocol.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective Case Series. BACKGROUND: Variety of studies inquired the effectiveness of exercise treatment in LET (Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy). The research on the effectiveness of these approaches are still ongoing and very much needed due to the uncertainty of the subject. PURPOSE: We aimed to understand how the application of exercises in a graded manner affect the treatment outcomes in terms of pain and function. METHODS: This study is completed by 28 patients with LET and it was planned as a prospective case series. Thirty participants were included to participate in the exercise group. Basic Exercises (Grade 1) were performed for four weeks. Advanced Exercises (Grade 2) were performed for another four weeks. The VAS (Visual Analog Scale), pressure algometer, the PRTEE (Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation) and a grip strength dynamometer were used to measure outcomes. The measurements were performed at baseline, at the end of four weeks and at the end of eight weeks. RESULTS: Investigation of the pain scores revealed that all VAS scores (p < 0.05, ES = 1.35; 0.72; 0,73 activity, rest, and night respectively) and pressure algometer results were improved both during basic (p < 0.05, ES = 0.91) and advanced exercises (p < 0.05, ES = 0,41). PRTEE scores were found to be improved in patients with LET after basic and advanced exercises (p > 0.001, ES = 1.15; p > 0.001, ES = 1.56 respectively). The grip strength only changed after basic exercises (p = 0.003, ES = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: The basic exercises were beneficial for both pain and function. However, advanced exercises are required for obtaining further improvements in terms of pain, function, and grip strength.

The impact of a hand therapy workplace-based educational approach on the management of lateral elbow tendinopathy: A randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is one of the most prevalent work-related musculoskeletal conditions. Management strategies for LET rarely consider patients' work environments and have limited focus on education regarding occupational risk factors. Workplace-based rehabilitation has shown benefits in the return to work processes for injured workers with other health conditions, but no studies have investigated the impact of a workplace-based educational approach in the management of LET. PURPOSES: First, to identify the impact of an additional workplace-based educational intervention to standard hand therapy care on the outcomes of pain, grip strength, and function. Second, to identify the effectiveness of standard hand therapy on the same clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Forty-nine participants were randomized to the control group (n = 25) or intervention group (n = 24). The control group received standard hand therapy for 12 weeks. The intervention group received standard hand therapy for the first 12 weeks plus an additional workplace-based educational intervention, "Working Hands-ED," delivered by a hand therapist. Pain levels for provocative tests, grip strength, and function were measured using a Numeric Rating Scale, Jamar Dynamometer, and the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation questionnaire at baseline, weeks 6 and 12. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale was also used for the intervention group. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between both groups for all clinical outcomes by 12 weeks (P> .05). Pain levels for all provocative tests and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation scores statistically improved within both groups (P < .05), however with small effect sizes observed. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale scores statistically improved for the intervention group by 12 weeks (P < .05). CONCLUSION: The addition of a hand therapy workplace-based intervention did not result in superior clinical outcomes for pain, grip strength, and function. The study identified that a multimodal self-management approach used by hand therapists improved their patients' pain and function regardless of whether the education was given in the clinic or the workplace.

Treatment Options for Tennis Elbow - An Umbrella Review.

INTRODUCTION: The main goal of the present umbrella review was to provide the most up-to- date and evidence-based results regarding the various treatment options for tennis elbow (TE), which hopefully will significantly decrease the confusions existing in the literature. Furthermore, our study differs from past analytical studies because, as to the best of the authors' knowledge, is the first to provide independent (not in comparison to other treatment) statistical results regarding the effectiveness of each TE treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Major medical databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, BIOSIS, and EBSCO were searched. The overall search process was conducted in 3 stages. RESULTS: A total of 40 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Out of those 40 meta-analyses, a total of 160 primary studies were screened in order to extract the data and perform a statistical analysis. CONCLUSION: The present umbrella review underlines the efficiency of injection therapies, especially autologous blood, and platelet-rich plasma, while simultaneously proving the ineffectiveness of acupuncture and shock wave therapy as treatments for TE. Furthermore, the value of other known conservative treatment modalities, such as physical therapy, has been demonstrated.

Persistent Tennis Elbow Symptoms Have Little Prognostic Value: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tennis elbow is a common painful enthesopathy of the lateral elbow that limits upper limb function and frequently results in lost time at work. Surgeons often recommend surgery if symptoms persist despite nonsurgical management, but operations for tennis elbow are inconsistent in their efficacy, and what we know about those operations often derives from observational studies that assume the condition does not continue to improve over time. This assumption is largely untested, and it may not be true; meta-analyzing results from the control arms of tennis elbow studies can help us to evaluate this premise, but to our knowledge, this has not been done. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The aims of this systematic review were to describe the course of (1) global improvement, (2) pain, and (3) disability in participants who received no active treatment (placebo or no treatment) in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on tennis elbow. We also assessed (4) whether the duration of symptoms or placebo effect is associated with differences in symptom trajectories. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from database inception to August 12, 2019, for trials including participants with tennis elbow and a placebo or a no-treatment arm and a minimum follow-up duration of 6 months. There were no language restrictions or exclusion criteria. We extracted global improvement, pain, and disability outcomes. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess the risk of bias of included trials. To estimate the typical course of tennis elbow without active treatment, we pooled global improvement (the proportion of participants who reported feeling much better or completely recovered), mean pain, and mean disability using baseline, 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up data. We transformed pain and disability data from the original papers so that at each timepoint the relevant outcome was expressed as change relative to baseline to account for different baseline values. We used meta-regression to assess whether the placebo effect or duration of symptoms before enrollment was associated with differences in symptom trajectories. We included 24 trials with 1085 participants who received no active treatment. RESULTS: The number of patients who were not improved decreased exponentially over time. The half-life of global improvement was between 2.5 and 3 months (that is, every 2.5 to 3 months, 50% of the remaining symptomatic patients reported complete recovery or greatly improved symptoms). At 1 year, 89% (189 of 213; 95% CI 80% to 97%) of patients experienced global improvement. The mean pain and disability followed a similar pattern, halving every 3 to 4 months. Eighty-eight percent of pain (95% CI 70% to 100%) and 85% of disability (95% CI 60% to 100%) had resolved by 1 year. The mean duration of symptoms before trial enrollment was not associated with differences in symptom trajectories. The trajectories of the no-treatment and placebo arms were similar, indicating that the placebo effect of the studied active treatments likely is negligible. CONCLUSION: Based on the placebo or no-treatment control arms of randomized trials, about 90% of people with untreated tennis elbow achieve symptom resolution at 1 year. The probability of resolution appears to remain constant throughout the first year of follow-up and does not depend on previous symptom duration, undermining the rationale that surgery is appropriate if symptoms persist beyond a certain point of time. We recommend that clinicians inform people who are frustrated with persisting symptoms that this is not a cause for apprehension, given that spontaneous improvement is about as likely during the subsequent few months as it was early after the symptoms first appeared. Because of the high likelihood of spontaneous recovery, any active intervention needs to be justified by high levels of early efficacy and little or no risk to outperform watchful waiting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.