Ultrasound-Guided Vs Non-Guided Prolotherapy for Internal Derangement of Temporomandibular Joint. A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This randomized clinical trial study aims to compare ultrasound-guided versus non-guided Dextrose 10% injections in patients suffering from internal derangement in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study population included 22 patients and 43 TMJs suffering from unilateral or bilateral TMJ painful clicking, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) proved disc displacement with reduction (DDWR), refractory to or failed conservative treatment. The patients were divided randomly into two groups (non-guided and ultrasound (US)-guided groups). The procedure involved injection of 2 mL solution of a mixture of 0.75 mL 0.9% normal saline solution, 0.3 mL 2% lidocaine and 0.75 mL dextrose 10% using a 25G needle in the joint and 1 mL intramuscular injection to the masseter muscle at the most tender point. The Visual Analogue Score (VAS) was used to compare joint pain intensity over four different periods, beginning with pre-injection, 1-, 2-, and 6-months postinjection. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients 5 males (n = 5/22, 22.7%) and 17 females (n = 17/22, 77.2%) were included in this study. The mean age was 27.3 ± 7.4 years (30.2 ± 7.0) for the non-guided group and 24.3 ± 6.9 for the US-guided group. The dextrose injection reduced intensity over time in both groups with statistically significant improvement (P value <.05) at 2 and 6 months in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in VAS assessment between both groups. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular injection of dextrose 10% for patients with painful clicking and DDWR resulted in reduced pain intensity in both US-guided and non-guided groups with significant symptomatic improvement over time in both groups. US guidance allowed accurate anatomical localization and safe procedure with a single joint puncture.

Evaluation of the effect of dextrose prolotherapy versus deep dry needling therapy for the treatment of temporomandibular joint anterior disc displacement with reduction: (a randomized controlled trial).

OBJECTIVE: to compare the combined effect of Prolotherapy and Deep Dry Needling (DDN) versus DDN effect on relieving the symptoms of Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) anterior disc displacement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical trial randomly allocated forty patients. The (control group) patients received four intraarticular and masseteric DDN sessions, while the (study group) patients were subjected to the exact technique followed by Prolosolution injection. The baseline preoperative measurements included Maximal interincisal opening (MIO), auscultation of the presence of clicking, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), which were repeated for postoperative measurements after one, two, five, and eight months. RESULTS: By the end of the study, all patients expressed apparent improvement in pain MIO and clicking. The inter- and intragroup comparison revealed that the pain score values of the control group after five and eight months were significantly higher than those of the study group. The study group demonstrated more significant MIO calibration than the control group, with insignificant differences between both groups regarding the presence of clicking at any time interval. The associations between clicking and VAS values, between clicking and MIO, and between VAS values and increased MIO were positive in the test group and negative in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Dextrose Prolotherapy and DDN were beneficial. However, Prolotherapy demonstrated more significant, sustained, and correlated long-term alleviation of symptoms and increased MIO. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The study assesses the sole effect of dextrose prolotherapy on relieving the signs of TMJ anterior disc displacement apart from the impact of the penetrating needle. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (#: NCT05821985) by Ahmed Nagi Alghandour.

Is Low-Dose Dextrose Prolotherapy as Effective as High-Dose Dextrose Prolotherapy in the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis? A Double-Blind, Ultrasound Guided, Randomized Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of prolotherapy (PrT) on pain, functionality, clinical improvement and to compare the 5% low and 15% high dose dextrose PrT in chronic lateral epicondylitis. DESIGN: A double-blind, parallel groups, randomized controlled study. SETTINGS: Outpatient Clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty patients (N=60), aged 44.30±10.31 years old, with chronic lateral epicondylitis were allocated randomly into 3 groups. INTERVENTIONS: To Group 1 5% dextrose PrT, to Group 2 15% dextrose PrT, to Group 3 0.9% saline injections were done at 3 times (weeks 0, 3, 6), to the entheses of forearm extensors and annular ligament. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were handgrip strength, visual analog scale-rest (VAS-R), visual analog scale-activity (VAS-A), pressure-pain threshold, and Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Q-DASH). The secondary outcomes were clinical improvement (Disease Global Assessment Questionnaire), side effects, and complications. Primary outcomes were collected at baseline week 0, week 3, and 12. Secondary outcomes were collected at weeks 3 and 12. RESULTS: In Group 2, VAS-A and VAS-R (at week 3), handgrip strength and pressure-pain threshold (at week 12) were significantly different than other groups (P<.05). In Groups 1 and 2, there was a difference in primary outcomes at week 12 than baseline (P<.05). In Group 3, there was no difference in VAS-R, VAS-A, and handgrip strength at weeks 3 and 12 than baseline (P>.05). CONCLUSION: In chronic lateral epicondylitis, 5% and 15% dextrose PrT is more effective in pain, handgrip strength, functionality, and clinical improvement than %0.9 saline. There was no difference in functionality, clinical improvement, side effects, and complications between the PrT groups. 15% dextrose PrT was more effective in handgrip strength and pressure-pain threshold at week 12 and pain at week 3. We recommend 15% dextrose PrT based on this study.

Effectiveness of Hypertonic Dextrose Injection (Prolotherapy) in Plantar Fasciopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness of hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy (DPT) in plantar fasciopathy (PF) compared with other non-surgical treatments. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Global Health, Ovid Nursing Database, Dimensions, and WHO ICTRP were searched from inception to April 30th, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of DPT in PF compared with non-surgical treatments. Outcomes included pain intensity, foot and ankle function, and plantar fascia thickness. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers conducted data extraction. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight RCTs (n=469) met the inclusion criteria. Pooled results favored the use of DPT versus normal saline (NS) injections in reducing pain (weighted mean difference [WMD] -41.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] -62.36 to -21.08; P<.01; low certainty evidence) and improving function [WMD -39.04; 95% CI -55.24 to -22.85; P<.01; low certainty evidence] in the medium term. Pooled results also showed corticosteroid (CS) injections was superior to DPT in reducing pain in the short term [standardized mean difference 0.77; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.14; P<.01; moderate certainty evidence]. Overall RoB varied from "some concerns" to "high". The overall certainty of evidence presented ranges from very low to moderate based on the assessment with the GRADE approach. CONCLUSION: Low certainty evidence demonstrated that DPT was superior to NS injections in reducing pain and improving function in the medium term, but moderate certainty evidence showed that it was inferior to CS in reducing pain in the short term. Further high-quality RCTs with standard protocol, longer-term follow-up, and adequate sample size are needed to confirm its role in clinical practice.

Botulinum Toxin Versus Dextrose Prolotherapy: Which is More Effective for Temporomandibular Joint Subluxation? A Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) therapy or dextrose prolotherapy (DP) has been used to treat temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders. However, the superiority of one method over the other has not been studied in patients with TMJ subluxation. Therefore, this study aims to answer the following clinical question: among patients with TMJ subluxation, do those undergoing BTX-A injection into lateral pterygoid muscles, compared to those undergoing intra- and periarticular DP injections, have better outcomes in terms of locking episodes and patient satisfaction? METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was implemented in adult patients with TMJ subluxation. The sample was composed of patients with TMJ subluxation with painful open-locking during wide mouth opening and/or yawning at baseline. The subjects were treated randomly with one of two treatment techniques with equal numbers as follows: one-session BTX-A injection into lateral pterygoid muscles (BTX-A group) or three sessions of dextrose injections around TMJ (prolotherapy group). The predictor variable was the treatment technique (BTX-A or prolotherapy injections). The primary outcome variable was the frequency of locking episodes. The secondary outcome variable was patient satisfaction. The primary outcome variable was recorded at baseline and 8-12 months following the injections. The secondary outcome variable was recorded only 8-12 months following the injections. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed. The data were analyzed with the Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: The baseline sample was composed of 30 patients with TMJ subluxation. However, the follow-up sample comprised 25 subjects: 11 (9 females, 2 males; 25.64 years) in the BTX-A group and 14 (10 females, 4 males; 32.37 years) in the prolotherapy group. Locking episodes decreased significantly in the two groups with no significant difference (P < .01). Seven patients in the BTX-A group (7 of 11 patients; 63.6 percent) and eight (8 of 14 patients; 57.1 percent) in the prolotherapy group reported no complaint of locking at the end of follow-up, with no significant difference between the groups (P > .05). Patient satisfaction showed no significant difference between the groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: These findings suggested that BTX-A injection is no more effective than DP for any outcome variables of TMJ subluxation assessed.

Effects of Hypertonic Dextrose Injection (Prolotherapy) in Lateral Elbow Tendinosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness of hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy (DPT) on pain intensity and physical functioning in patients with lateral elbow tendinosis (LET) compared with other active non-surgical treatments. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, Dimensions, Global Health, NHS Health Technology Assessment, Allied and Complementary Medicine, and OVID nursing database from inception to June 15, 2021, without language restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently identified parallel or crossover randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of DPT in LET. The search identified 245 records; data from 8 studies (354 patients) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed included studies. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to evaluate risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess quality of the evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Pooled results favored the use of DPT in reducing tennis elbow pain intensity compared with active controls at 12 weeks postenrollment, with a standardized mean difference of -0.44 (95% confidence interval, -0.88 to -0.01, P=.04) and of moderate heterogeneity (I2=49%). Pooled results also favored the use of DPT on physical functioning compared with active controls at 12 weeks, with Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores achieving a mean difference of -15.04 (95% confidence interval, -20.25 to -9.82, P<.001) and of low heterogeneity (I2=0.0%). No major related adverse events have been reported. CONCLUSIONS: DPT is superior to active controls at 12 weeks for decreasing pain intensity and functioning by margins that meet criteria for clinical relevance in the treatment of LET. Although existing studies are too small to assess rare adverse events, for patients with LET, especially those refractory to first-line treatments, DPT can be considered a nonsurgical treatment option in carefully selected patients. Further high-quality trials with comparison with other injection therapies are needed.

Effectiveness, Compliance, and Safety of Dextrose Prolotherapy for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis and Metaregression of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the effectiveness, compliance, and safety of dextrose prolotherapy for patients with knee osteoarthritis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library Database, and the Scopus database from their inception to December 31, 2021. METHODS: This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Randomized controlled trials regarding the effectiveness of dextrose prolotherapy in knee osteoarthritis were identified. The included trials were subjected to meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Subgroup and random-effects metaregression analyses were performed to explore any heterogeneity (I2) of treatment effects across studies. RESULTS: A total of 14 trials enrolling 978 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo injection and noninvasive control therapy, dextrose prolotherapy had favorable effects on pain, global function, and quality of life during the overall follow-up. Dextrose prolotherapy yielded greater reductions in pain score over each follow-up duration than did the placebo. Compared with other invasive therapies, dextrose prolotherapy generally achieved comparable effects on pain and functional outcomes for each follow-up duration.Subgroup results indicated that combined intra-articular and extra-articular injection techniques may have stronger effects on pain than a single intra-articular technique. CONCLUSIONS: Dextrose prolotherapy may have dose-dependent and time-dependent effects on pain reduction and function recovery, respectively, in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Due to remarkable heterogeneity and the risk of biases across the included trials, the study results should be cautiously interpreted.

Meta-analysis of clinical trials focusing on hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy (HDP) for knee osteoarthritis.

Hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy (HDP) is an injection of a concentrated dextrose solution for the purpose of local treatment of musculoskeletal pain and possible enhancement of repair mechanisms. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the clinical utility of HDP injection for treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) utilizing HDP to treat knee OA were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). Identification and inclusion of RCTs utilizing intra-articular and extra-articular administration of HDP vs administration of other injectate or physical therapy as control for knee OA were included. Primary clinical outcomes were changes in knee WOMAC, pain and function score. Secondary outcomes were adverse events related to HDP. For continuous outcomes with same or different measurements, we calculated, respectively the weighted mean difference (WMD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD), respectively. Results were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random effect models across the included studies and heterogeneity between studies was estimated using the I2 index. Five studies comprising a total of 319 treated patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. At a mean of 22.8 weeks follow-up, HDP treatment significantly improved total WOMAC score (WMD = 13.77, 95% CI: 6.75-20.78; p < 0.001; I2 = 90%), pain (SMD = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.49-2.17; p < 0.001; I2 = 91%) and knee function (SMD = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.45-2.14; p < 0.001; I2 = 91%) compared with control group. There were no severe adverse events related to dextrose injection reported in all the included studies. HDP is a promising treatment for knee OA with a reasonable safety profile. Further research in mechanism of HDP activity and long-term follow-up study will be needed for exploring this novel therapy modality.

Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Prolotherapy Versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Plantar Fasciitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) versus dextrose prolotherapy on pain and foot functions in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis with a prospective randomized-controlled trial. A total of 29 patients in whom conservative care failed were enrolled for the study after the clinical and ultrasonographic assessment. The patients were randomly assigned to receive ESWT (ESWT group, n = 15) or dextrose prolotherapy (dextrose prolotherapy group, n = 14). ESWT group received 1800 to 2000 focused shock waves (session of 0.20-0.30 mJ/mm2 with a frequency of 4-6 Hz) followed by soft tissue 3000 to 3500 radial pulses (session of 1.8-3.0 bar with a frequency of 15-21 Hz). Dextrose prolotherapy group underwent an injection of 5 ml 15% dextrose solution with 2% lidocaine. ESWT and dextrose prolotherapy were repeated 3 times by 2 weeks apart. A 100-mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for overall and morning pain, Foot Function Index (FFI) and the Roles and Maudsley Scale score (RMS) were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after the last intervention. Overall VAS, Morning VAS, RMS and FFI scores improved significantly in both treatment groups at 6 weeks and 12 weeks compared to baseline (p < .001). Comparison of changes in overall VAS, Morning VAS, RMS and FFI scores did not show a significant difference between the groups at each time point (p > .05) In our study dextrose prolotherapy and ESWT had similar effectiveness in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis who have not respond to conservative care. The results showed ESWT and dextrose prolotherapy were not superior to each other.

Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Corticosteroid Injections, Prolotherapy, and Exercise Therapy on Partial-Thickness Supraspinatus Tears.

CONTEXT: To investigate the effects of steroid injection (STE), prolotherapy (PRO), and exercise therapy in the treatment of partial tears of the supraspinatus. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. METHODS: A total of 64 patients with clinically and radiologically diagnosed partial-thickness supraspinatus tear who received either a cortisone injection (STE), dextrose PRO, or physical therapy combined with home-based exercise therapy were included. Main outcome measures were patients' visual analog scale scores, Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) Index scores, and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index scores at the baseline, 3 weeks, and 3 months. RESULTS: The effect of group, time, and group-time interaction on visual analog scale, WORC, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index scores was statistically significant (P < .001). Visual analog scale and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index scores were the lowest in the STE group at week 3, and the lowest in the PRO group at month 3 (P < .001). WORC scores of the STE group were the highest at week 3 (P < .001). At month 3, WORC scores of STE and PRO groups were similar (P = .089), but significantly higher than exercise therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroids provide a fast pain-relieving effect and improvement in function in partial-thickness rotator cuff tears, but these effects diminish over time, whereas PRO provides a long-lasting effect.

Prolotherapy for chronic low back pain: a review of literature.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain is common and imposes major societal burdens for patient suffering and costs. Prolotherapy injections are used for musculoskeletal conditions including tendinopathies, osteoarthritis and low back pain to enhance soft-tissue healing. This review aims to clarify the place of prolotherapy in chronic low back pain (CLBP). SOURCES OF DATA: Using multiple databases, a systematic search was performed to identify studies detailing the use of prolotherapy to manage CLBP. A total of 12 articles was included in the present work. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Considering the level of evidence and the quality of the studies assessed using the modified Coleman Score, prolotherapy is an effective management modality for CLBP patients in whom conservative therapies failed. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The presence of co-interventions and the clinical heterogeneity of the work contributes to confound the overall conclusions. GROWING POINTS AND AREAS FOR RESEARCH: The analysis of the studies included in the review, using appropriate tools, showed how their quality has decreased over the years, reflecting the need for appropriately powered well planned and performed randomized control trials.

Effects of Hyperosmolar Dextrose Injection in Patients With Rotator Cuff Disease and Bursitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether dextrose prolotherapy offers clinical benefits in patients with shoulder pain and bursitis. DESIGN: Double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient rehabilitation department of a single medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=50) who had received a diagnosis of shoulder pain and bursitis through clinical tests and ultrasound examination. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to the 15% dextrose injection (D15W) group or the placebo group to receive either D15W or normal saline injection, respectively. All participants received ultrasound-guidance bursal injection every 2 weeks for a total of 3 injections. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was maximal pain level while performing activities. The secondary outcomes included resting pain level, function and disability assessment results, and ultrasonographic parameters. Participants were followed up for 3 months after completion of the injection course. RESULTS: No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the D15W and placebo groups. Significant time effects were observed for all outcome parameters (all P<.05); however, time × group effects were nonsignificant for all outcomes, except for tissue elasticity (P=.026). CONCLUSIONS: Supporting evidence is insufficient regarding the clinical benefits of 15% dextrose bursal injection administered through 3 sessions in patients with chronic shoulder pain and bursitis. The findings indicate that these injections may increase the tissue stiffness of the supraspinatus tendon, as indicated by elastography assessment results, but further research is required to determine the nature of such changes in elastography findings.

Periarticular Neurofascial Dextrose Prolotherapy Versus Physiotherapy for the Treatment of Chronic Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy: Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Rotator cuff tendinopathy is a common cause of shoulder pain. We aimed to compare periarticular (neurofascial) dextrose prolotherapy versus physiotherapy for treatment of chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy in the short term. METHODS: We carried out a randomized clinical trial with 2 arms at a university hospital. In total, 66 patients with chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy, proven by magnetic resonance imaging, were randomly allocated to 2 groups. The outcomes were change in shoulder pain intensity (primary) and disability (secondary) index using a questionnaire for Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. For physiotherapy, participants received superficial heat, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and pulsed ultrasound. Also, they carried out an exercise program, 10 sessions of 30 minutes for 3 weeks. For prolotherapy, we used 8 mL of 12.5% dextrose and 40 mg of 2% lidocaine. The mixture was injected 2 times with 1-week interval superficially around the shoulder joint and to tender points along the suprascapular nerve. RESULTS: Neurofascial dextrose was more effective than physiotherapy for alleviating pain in 2 weeks (p < 0.001), and they were similar 3 months after the interventions (p = 0.055). For disability, dextrose was more effective than physiotherapy 2 weeks and 3 months (both p < 0.001) after the interventions. However, the changes in the physiotherapy group seemed to be more sustained. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions are effective for the short-term management of rotator cuff tendinopathy. However, prolotherapy is more successful as the initial treatment. Besides, the treatment time is much shorter for dextrose prolotherapy compared with physiotherapy.

Dextrose prolotherapy versus radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis: A randomized, controlled clinical trial.

In the recent years, prolotherapy is increasingly being used in the field of musculoskeletal medicine. However, few studies have investigated its effectiveness in plantar fasciitis (PF). The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided dextrose prolotherapy with radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in the treatment of chronic PF. This randomized controlled trial was conducted on 59 patients with chronic PF. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups receiving three sessions of radial ESWT (29 patients) vs. two sessions of ultrasound-guided intrafascial 2 cc dextrose 20% injection (30 patients). The following outcome measures were assessed before and then six weeks and 12 weeks after the treatments: pain intensity by visual analog scale (VAS), daily life and exercise activities by Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and the plantar fascia thickness by ultrasonographic imaging. The VAS and FAAM scales showed significant improvements of pain and function in both study groups 6 weeks and 12 weeks after the treatments. A significant reduction was noted for plantar fascia thickness at these intervals (all p < .05). The inter-group comparison revealed that except for the FAAM-sport subscale which favored ESWT, the interaction effects of group and time were not significant for other outcome measures. Dextrose prolotherapy has comparable efficacy to radial ESWT in reducing pain, daily-life functional limitation, and plantar fascia thickness in patients with PF. No serious adverse effects were observed in either group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled trial.

Efficacy of Intra-Articular Hypertonic Dextrose (Prolotherapy) for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To test the efficacy of intra-articular hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy (DPT) vs normal saline (NS) injection for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS: A single-center, parallel-group, blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted at a university primary care clinic in Hong Kong. Patients with KOA (n = 76) were randomly allocated (1:1) to DPT or NS groups for injections at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 16. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; 0-100 points) pain score. The secondary outcomes were the WOMAC composite, function and stiffness scores; objectively assessed physical function test results; visual analogue scale (VAS) for knee pain; and EuroQol-5D score. All outcomes were evaluated at baseline and at 16, 26, and 52 weeks using linear mixed model. RESULTS: Randomization produced similar groups. The WOMAC pain score at 52 weeks showed a difference-in-difference estimate of -10.34 (95% CI, -19.20 to -1.49, P = 0.022) points. A similar favorable effect was shown on the difference-in-difference estimate on WOMAC function score of -9.55 (95% CI, -17.72 to -1.39, P = 0.022), WOMAC composite score of -9.65 (95% CI, -17.77 to -1.53, P = 0.020), VAS pain intensity score of -10.98 (95% CI, -21.36 to -0.61, P = 0.038), and EuroQol-5D VAS score of 8.64 (95% CI, 1.36 to 5.92, P = 0.020). No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular dextrose prolotherapy injections reduced pain, improved function and quality of life in patients with KOA compared with blinded saline injections. The procedure is straightforward and safe; the adherence and satisfaction were high.

Treatment of Osteoarthritis Secondary to Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip with Prolotherapy Injection versus a Supervised Progressive Exercise Control.

BACKGROUND Osteoarthritis secondary to developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is one of the major causes of hip pain and disability. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of prolotherapy (PrT) injections versus exercise protocol for the treatment of DDH. MATERIAL AND METHODS There were 46 hips of 41 patients who had osteoarthritis secondary to DDH included in this study. Patients were divided into 2 groups: treated with PrT (PrT group; n=20) and exercise (control group; n=21). Clinical outcomes were evaluated with visual analog scale for pain (VAS) and Harris hip score (HHS) at baseline, 3 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and a minimum of 1-year follow-up. In PrT group clinical results were also compared in Crowe type I-IV hips. RESULTS Between group analysis revealed no significant between group differences at baseline. Dextrose injection recipients out performed exercise controls for VAS pain change score at 6 months (-4.6±2.6 versus -2.8±2.5; P=0.016), and 12 months (-4.5±2.4 versus -2.9±2.5; P=0.017) and for HHS at 6 months (24.2±14.0 versus 14.8±12.4; P=0.007) and 12 months (24.3±13.4 versus 16.5±11.3; P=0.018). CONCLUSIONS To our best knowledge, this study is the first regarding the effects of an injection method in the treatment of osteoarthritis secondary to DDH. According to our study, PrT is superior to exercises. PrT could provide significant improvement for clinical outcomes in DDH and might delay surgery.

Revolving doors of tendinopathy: definition, pathogenesis and treatment.

The ultimate cure for the tendon pathology continues to elude current science. Despite great steps in technology, the causation and treatment is still not clear. The number of different theories and treatment modalities in the literature may confuse clinicians and patients. In this paper we outline the definitions, evolution of pathogenesis and treatment for tendinopathy. By highlighting these, the aim of this paper is to guide the practitioner in counselling and treating their patients.

Regenerative Injectable Therapies: Current Evidence.

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

Regenerative Medicine for Axial and Radicular Spine-Related Pain: A Narrative Review.

INTRODUCTION: Regenerative injection-based therapy has established itself as a therapeutic option for the management of a variety of painful musculoskeletal conditions. The aim of this work was to review the current literature regarding regenerative injection therapy for axial/radicular spine pain. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted on the use of regenerative medicine for axial/radicular spine pain. Eligible articles analyzed the therapeutic injection effects of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), prolotherapy, or mesenchymal signaling cells (MSCs) via intradiscal, facet joint, epidural, or sacroiliac joint delivery. RESULTS: Regarding intradiscal PRP, there are level I/IV studies supporting its use. Regarding intradiscal prolotherapy, there are level III to IV studies supporting its use. Regarding intradiscal MSCs, there are level I/IV studies supporting its use with the exception of one level IV study that found no significant improvement at 12 months. Regarding facet joint injections with PRP, there are level I/IV studies supporting its use. Regarding facet joint injections with prolotherapy, there are level IV studies supporting its use, though the one level I study did not demonstrate any statistical significance supporting its use. Regarding epidural injections with PRP, there are level I/IV studies supporting its use. Regarding epidural injections with prolotherapy, there are level IV studies supporting its use, though the one level I study did not demonstrate statistical significance beyond 48 hours. Regarding sacroiliac joint injections with PRP, there are level I/IV studies supporting its use. Regarding sacroiliac joint injections with prolotherapy, there are level I/III studies supporting its use. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there are level I studies to support the use of PRP and MSC injections for discogenic pain; facet joint injections with PRP; epidural injections of autologous conditioned serum and epidural prolotherapy; and PRP and prolotherapy for sacroiliac joint pain. One level I study showed that facet joint prolotherapy has no significant benefit. Notably, no intervention has multiple published level I studies.

Prolotherapy vs Radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy in the Short-term Treatment of Lateral Epicondylosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of prolotherapy with hypertonic dextrose and radial shock wave therapy in chronic lateral epicondilosis. DESIGN: Prospective single-blind randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinic. SUBJECTS: Thirty-three patients with at least three months of signs and symptoms of lateral epicondilosis, as well as failure of at least one of the conservative treatments, randomly allocated into two groups. METHODS: Sixteen patients received three sessions of shock wave therapy, and 17 received one session prolotherapy. Severity of pain via visual analog scale (VAS), grip strength via Baseline Pneumatic Dynamometer, pressure pain threshold (PPT) by algometer and Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand quick questionnaire (Quick DASH) were assessed at baseline, four weeks, and eight weeks after the intervention. RESULTS: Within-group analysis showed that in both groups, differences between all of the outcome measures were significant after four and also eight weeks. Between-group analysis after four and eight weeks showed that the VAS and Quick DASH had significantly more improvement in the shock wave group. However, the two groups were similar regarding grip strength and PPT. No complication was observed in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study, a regiment of three sessions (weekly) of radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy is significantly more effective than one session of prolotherapy with 20% dextrose regarding pain and function in the management of chronic lateral epicondylosis in short-term follow-up.