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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of Platelet Rich Plasma and Prolotherapy in the Management of Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND Osteochondral lesions of talus (OLT) are among the most common ankle problems. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and prolotherapy (PrT) are 2 successful injection-based techniques for treatment of chronic musculoskeletal problems. The aim of the present study was to compare PRP and PrT injections for the management of OLT. MATERIAL AND METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study of 49 patients with OLT symptoms of more than 6 months who had been refractory to 3 months of treatment using conservative methods. The patients were divided into 2 groups: PrT injections (PrT group, n=27) or PRP injections (PRP group, n=22). The patients were given 3 injections of 4 mL solution into periarticular and intra-articular ankle joint spaces. After treatment, patients were evaluated via Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS), and Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) at baseline and 21-, 90-, 180-, and 360-day follow-up periods. RESULTS Both PRP and PrT treatments resulted in greater improvement in pain and ankle functions at follow-up periods extending to 1 year (P<0.001) and there was no difference between the groups for the outcomes at follow-up periods (P>0.05). Excellent or good outcomes were reported by 88.8% of the patients in PrT group and 90.9% of the patients in PRP group. CONCLUSIONS Both PRP and PrT are efficient and safe methods in treatment of OLT. PrT offers advantages of less cost and minimal invasiveness.

Comparative Effectiveness of Injection Therapies in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review, Pairwise and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of diverse injections in patients with rotator cuff tendinopathy using pairwise and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published up to September 31, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: We included all published or unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing diverse injections including corticosteroid, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, hyaluronic acid, botulinum toxin, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and prolotherapy in patients with rotator cuff tendinopathy. Among the 1495 records screened, 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: The quality of RCTs was assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool by 2 independent raters. The primary outcome was pain reduction, and the secondary outcome was functional improvement. DATA SYNTHESIS: Standardized mean difference (SMD) was used for pairwise and network meta-analysis. In pairwise meta-analysis, corticosteroid was more effective only in the short term in both pain reduction and functional improvement. Network meta-analysis indicated that prolotherapy significantly reduced pain compared with placebo in the long term (over 24wk; SMD: 2.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88-3.38); meanwhile PRP significantly improved shoulder function compared with placebo in the long term (over 24wk; SMD: 0.44; 95% CI, 0.05-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with rotator cuff tendinopathy, corticosteroid plays a role in the short term (3-6wk) but not in long-term (over 24wk) pain reduction and functional improvement. By contrast, PRP and prolotherapy may yield better outcomes in the long term (over 24wk). On account of heterogeneity, interpreting these results with caution is warranted.

Dextrose injections for failed back surgery syndrome: a consecutive case series.

PURPOSE: Patients with chronic low back pain, who do not respond to conservative treatment methods, generally undergo surgical revision operations, and sometimes an undesirable condition called failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) may be inevitable. Hereby, dextrose is one of the regenerative methods that has gained popularity in the treatment of many musculoskeletal problems, and we aimed to present and evaluate the outcomes of 5% dextrose for the treatment of FBSS. METHODS: It has been designed as a consecutive case series. A total of 79 patients with FBSS, who had minimum 6 months of symptoms and did not respond to 3 months of conservative methods between May 2014 and March 2016, participated in the study. Prolotherapy injections were applied in posterior and lateral approaches. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used for the pre- and post-treatment evaluations. Patient satisfaction was assessed with using a 5-point Likert scale by phone contacting. RESULTS: There was statistically significant difference between repeated VAS and ODI measurements. CONCLUSIONS: These results may be the first step giving a lead to an undiscovered field. This treatment method should be kept in mind for FBSS patients before giving a decision of revision surgery. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Ultrasound-Guided Prolotherapy for Acromial Enthesopathy and Acromioclavicular Joint Arthropathy: A Single-Arm Prospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: Prolotherapy is an injection-based complementary treatment for various musculoskeletal diseases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of ultrasound-guided prolotherapy in the treatment of acromial enthesopathy and acromioclavicular joint arthropathy. METHODS: Thirty-one patients with chronic moderate-to-severe shoulder pain were recruited from September 2015 to September 2017. Ultrasound-guided prolotherapy was performed by injecting 10 mL of a 15% dextrose solution into the acromial enthesis of the deltoid or acromioclavicular joint capsule aseptically. Prolotherapy was given in 2 sessions separated by a 1-month interval. The pretreatment-to-posttreatment change in the pain visual analog scale (VAS) score was recorded as the primary outcome. The mean follow-up duration was 61.8 days. A paired t test was used to assess the difference in pretreatment and posttreatment VAS scores. A univariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify the demographic variables associated with substantial pain reduction after the intervention. Substantial pain reduction was defined as a posttreatment VAS score of 3 or less. RESULTS: Twenty of the 31 patients reported substantial pain reduction without adverse effects after the intervention. The mean VAS score reduction ± SD was 4.3 ± 2.6 (pretreatment, 6.8 ± 1.5; posttreatment, 2.5 ± 2.1; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided prolotherapy with a 15% dextrose solution is an effective and safe therapeutic option for moderate-to-severe acromial enthesopathy and acromioclavicular joint arthropathy.

Prolotherapy injections and physiotherapy used singly and in combination for lateral epicondylalgia: a single-blinded randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Lateral epicondylalgia (tennis elbow) is a common, debilitating and often treatment-resistant condition. Two treatments thought to address the pathology of lateral epicondylalgia are hypertonic glucose plus lignocaine injections (prolotherapy) and a physiotherapist guided manual therapy/exercise program (physiotherapy). This trial aimed to compare the short- and long-term clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and safety of prolotherapy used singly and in combination with physiotherapy. METHODS: Using a single-blinded randomised clinical trial design, 120 participants with lateral epicondylalgia of at least 6 weeks' duration were randomly assigned to prolotherapy (4 sessions, monthly intervals), physiotherapy (weekly for 4 sessions) or combined (prolotherapy+physiotherapy). The Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) and participant global impression of change scores were assessed by blinded evaluators at baseline, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. Success rate was defined as the percentage of participants indicating elbow condition was either 'much improved' or 'completely recovered.' Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Eighty-eight percent completed the 12-month assessment. At 52 weeks, there were substantial, significant improvements compared with baseline status for all outcomes and groups, but no significant differences between groups. The physiotherapy group exhibited greater reductions in PRTEE at 12 weeks than the prolotherapy group (p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences amongst the Physiotherapy, Prolotherapy and Combined groups in PRTEE and global impression of change measures over the course of the 12-month trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12612000993897 .

Is Prolotherapy Effective in the Treatment of Avascular Necrosis of the Femoral Head?

INTRODUCTION: Avascular necrosis of the femoral head (ANFH) is one of the most common diseases, accompanied by varying degrees of functional limitation and reduced quality of life, especially in younger individuals. Various conservative and operative options are available for the treatment of this disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We report a case with ANFH that occurred from long-time and uncontrolled glucocorticoid use. In the treatment of the case, we used prolotherapy injections, whose efficacy and reliability were proved in the treatment of other chronic musculoskeletal problems. After the sixth session of prolotherapy injections, the patient was able to do daily activities as the same as the previous physical and effort capacity. The WOMAC osteoarthritis index was decreased from 92 preinjections to 12; the Likert pain scale was decreased from 5 preinjections to 1 after the injections. CONCLUSIONS: We obtained successful outcomes in terms of patient satisfaction and clinical and radiological parameters with prolotherapy injections. Prolotherapy may be useful as an easily applicable and satisfying auxiliary method for the treatment of ANFH.

Efficacy of intra-articular hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy versus normal saline for knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a triple-blinded randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Knee Osteoarthritis (KOA) is a very common condition with prevalence rising with age. It is a major contributor to global disability and has a large socioeconomic burden worldwide. Conservative therapies have marginal effectiveness, and surgery is reserved for severe symptomatic KOA. Dextrose Prolotherapy (DPT) is an evidence-based injection-based therapy for chronic musculoskeletal conditions including KOA. The standard "whole joint" injection method includes intra-articular injection and multiple extra-articular injections at soft tissue bony attachments. The procedure is painful and requires intensive procedural training often unavailable in conventional medical education, which potentially limits access. Intra-articular injection offers the possibility of a less painful, more accessible treatment. The aim of this project is to assess the clinical efficacy of intra-articular injection of DPT versus normal saline (NS) for KOA. METHOD: Seventy-six participants with KOA will be recruited from the community. We will conduct a single center, parallel group, superiority randomized controlled trial comparing DPT and NS injections, with blinding of physician, participants, outcome assessors and statisticians. Each group will receive injections at week 0, 4, 8 and 16. The primary outcome will be the Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index pain scale (WOMAC), and secondary outcomes include WOMAC composite score, the WOMAC function and stiffness subscale, the Visual Analogue Score of pain, objective physical function tests (the 30 s chair stand, 40- m fast paced walk test, the Timed up and go test) and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). All outcomes will be evaluated at baseline, and 16, 26 and 52 weeks. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using linear mixed regression models. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the rationale, design, method and operational aspects of the trial. The findings will determine whether IA DPT, an inexpensive and simple injection, is a safe and effective non-surgical option for KOA. The results can be translated directly to clinical practice, with potentially substantial impact to patient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial ( ChiCTR-IPC-15006617 ) is registered under Chinese Clinical Trials Registry on 17th June 2015.

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Different Concentrations of Dextrose Prolotherapy in Temporomandibular Joint Hypermobility Treatment.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the efficacy of different concentrations of dextrose prolotherapy for the treatment of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) hypermobility. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized clinical trial including patients with subluxation or dislocation was performed. The study comprised 40 patients. Patients were randomly divided into 4 groups: control group, 10% dextrose, 20% dextrose, and 30% dextrose group. Patients in all groups received injections into 4 different areas of each TMJ in 4 sessions at monthly intervals. Visual analog scale of TMJ pain intensity, maximum mouth opening (MMO), joint sounds, and frequency of luxations were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively after 1 month of last injection. The collected data were then statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Each group showed postoperatively significant improvement in TMJ pain, significant decrease in both MMO and joint sound. Besides that, TMJ locking was not observed in any patient during the follow-up period. There were no statistically significant differences throughout the study intervals between the groups. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that there was no significant difference between control group and dextrose groups and there is no superiority of any concentration of dextrose over the others in TMJ prolotherapy, and all treatment procedures were efficient in improvement of clinical symptoms related to TMJ hypermobility. If dextrose is used as a proliferant, it can be said that 10% dextrose can be sufficient in TMJ hypermobility treatment.

Prolotherapy for Osteoarthritis and Tendinopathy: a Descriptive Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Osteoarthritis and overuse tendinopathy are common chronic conditions of high societal and patient burden. The precise etiology of pain and disability in both conditions is multifactorial and not well understood. Patients are often refractory to conservative therapy. The development of new therapeutic options in both conditions is a public health priority. Prolotherapy is an injection-based outpatient regenerative therapy for chronic musculoskeletal conditions, including osteoarthritis and tendinopathy. The authors reviewed the basic science and clinical literature associated with prolotherapy for these conditions. RECENT FINDINGS: Systematic review, including meta-analysis, and randomized controlled trials suggest that prolotherapy may be associated with symptom improvement in mild to moderate symptomatic knee osteoarthritis and overuse tendinopathy. Although the mechanism of action is not well understood and is likely multifactorial, a growing body of literature suggests that prolotherapy for knee osteoarthritis may be appropriate for the treatment of symptoms associated with knee osteoarthritis in carefully selected patients who are refractory to conservative therapy and deserves further basic and clinical science investigation for the treatment of osteoarthritis and tendinopathy.

Proliferative injection therapy for osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To systematically analyse randomised controlled trials (RCTs) about efficacy and safety of proliferative injection therapy (prolotherapy) for treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: CENTRAL, Embase and MEDLINE were searched. Two reviewers independently conducted screening and data extraction. RCTs were assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Type of treatment, study design, dosing, efficacy outcomes and safety outcomes were analysed. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035258). RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included, with 393 participants aged 40-75 years and mean OA pain duration from three months to eight years. Follow-up was 12 weeks to 12 months. Studies analysed OA of the knee joint (n = 5), first carpometacarpal joint (n = 1) and finger joints (n = 1). Various types of prolotherapy were used; dextrose was the most commonly used irritant agent. All studies concluded that prolotherapy was effective treatment for OA. No serious adverse events were reported. The studies had considerable methodological limitations. DISCUSSION: Limited evidence from low-quality studies indicates a beneficial effect of prolotherapy for OA management. The number of participants in these studies was too small to provide reliable evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Current data from trials about prolotherapy for OA should be considered preliminary, and future high-quality trials on this topic are warranted.