Effects of platelet-rich plasma and prolotherapy on supraspinatus tendinopathy: a double blind randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Supraspinatus tendinopathy is a significant cause of pain and function loss. It has been suggested that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and prolotherapy are effective treatments for this condition. This study was done to assess and compare the effects of PRP and prolotherapy on shoulder function and pain. The secondary aim was to evaluate the effect of the treatment on shoulder range of motion, supraspinatus tendon thickness, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. The study included 64 patients over the age of 18 who had supraspinatus tendinopathy and had not responded to at least three months of conventional treatment. Patients were assigned to either receive 2 mL of PRP (N.=32) or prolotherapy (N.=32). The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included shoulder range of motion (ROM), supraspinatus tendon thickness, and adverse effects, which were measured at baseline, 3, 6, and 6 months after injection. At six months, patient satisfaction was assessed. RESULTS: Repeated measures ANOVA showed there was a statistically significant effect of time on total SPADI scores (F [2.75, 151.11], = 2.85, P=0.040) and the NRS (F [2.69, 147.86], = 4.32, P=0.008) within each group. There were no other significant changes over time or between groups. Significantly more patients in the PRP group experienced increased pain lasting less than two weeks after injection (χ2=11.94, P=0.030). CONCLUSIONS: PRP and prolotherapy resulted in improved shoulder function and pain for patients with chronic supraspinatus tendinopathy who did not response to conventional treatment.

Effectiveness of Prolotherapy Combined with Physical Therapy Versus Physical Therapy Only for Frozen Shoulder: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND Frozen shoulder (FS) is a common conditions that causes significant morbidity. It is characterized by restriction of both active and passive shoulder motion (ROM) of the glenohumeral joint. The etiology, pathology, and most efficacious treatments are unclear. The purpose of FS treatment is complete elimination of pain and recovery of shoulder joint function. Prolotherapy injects certain compounds into articular spaces, ligaments, and/or tendons to relieve pain and disability around joint spaces and to stimulate a proliferation cascade to enhance tissue repair and strength. This case report aims to describe functional outcome changes in 2 patients with FS, comparing prolotherapy combined with physical therapy vs physical therapy only. CASE REPORT We report the cases of 2 patients with confirmed FS. Patient A was 66-year-old man with chief concern of right shoulder pain and limited ROM in the past 3 months, which disrupted daily life, with a visual analog scale (VAS) of 6 out of 10. Patient B was 65-year-old man with chief concern of right shoulder pain and limited ROM in the past 2 months. The symptoms affected his general quality of life, with a VAS of 5 out of 10. Patient A underwent prolotherapy combined with physical therapy and had significantly improved ROM after 2 weeks, with relieved pain and improved shoulder function. Patient B underwent physical therapy only and showed similar ROM and no significant pain improvement. CONCLUSIONS Initial treatment with prolotherapy combined with physical therapy for patients with frozen shoulder achieved fast improvement of active and passive ROM, significantly decreased pain, and improved quality of life compared to physical therapy intervention only.

The effectiveness of dextrose prolotherapy in plantar fasciitis: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dextrose prolotherapy (DPT) is considered to be a type of regenerative therapy and is widely used in various musculoskeletal disorders. Plantar fasciitis is a common cause of heel pain that affects the quality of life of many people. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of DPT for plantar fasciitis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from their respective inception dates to June 2021. Only randomized controlled trials comparing DPT and other interventions for plantar fasciitis were included in this review. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for comparison. The outcome measurements included visual analog score, numeric rating scale, Foot Function index, Revised Foot Function index, American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Score, and plantar fascia thickness. Post-treatment duration was classified as short-term (1-2 months), medium-term (3 months), or long-term (6 months). RESULTS: Six studies with 388 adult patients diagnosed with plantar fasciitis were included for the meta-analysis. In terms of pain scores improvement, DPT was superior to placebo or exercise in the short-term (SMD: -1.163, 95%CI: -2.17 to -0.156) and the medium-term (SMD: -1.394, 95%CI: -2.702 to -0.085). DPT was inferior to corticosteroid injection in the short-term (SMD: 0.781, 95%CI: 0.41 to 1.152). For functional improvement, DPT was superior to placebo or exercise in the short-term (SMD: -1.51, 95%CI: -2.96 to -0.059), but inferior to corticosteroid injection (SMD: 0.526, 95%CI: 0.161 to 0.89) and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the short-term (SMD: 0.484, 95%CI: 0.145 to 0.822). Randomized controlled trials showed a better pain improvement in the long-term for patients treated with DPT compared to corticosteroid (P = .002) and exercise control (P < .05). No significant differences were found between patients treated with DPT and patients treated with platelet-rich plasma. CONCLUSION: Dextrose prolotherapy was a safe and effective treatment option for plantar fasciitis that may have long-term benefits for patients. The effects were comparable to extracorporeal shock wave therapy or platelet-rich plasma injection. Further studies with standardized protocols and long-term follow-up are needed to address potential biases.

Complex regional pain syndrome type II caused by iatrogenic lateral dorsal cutaneous nerve injury: A case report.

RATIONALE: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a painful condition classified as type I or II depending on the absence or presence of nerve injury, respectively. Injury to the lateral dorsal cutaneous nerve (LDCN), a branch of the sural nerve, is a rare occurrence observed after a sprain or procedures conducted on the lateral side of the ankle. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 38-year-old female, who had undergone prolotherapy for a sprain in the lateral side of the left ankle 3 months ago, presented with persistent causalgia and dysesthesia around the injection site. DIAGNOSIS: An electrodiagnostic study was conducted, which confirmed that the patient had peripheral neuropathy of the left LDCN. Considering the digital infrared thermal imaging and three-phase bone scan findings and the clinical presentation, the condition was diagnosed as CRPS type II due to iatrogenic LDCN injury according to the Budapest diagnostic criteria for CRPS. INTERVENTIONS: The patient was treated with steroid pulse therapy, physical therapy, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, as well as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pregabalin, and tricyclic antidepressants. OUTCOMES: After 1 month of treatment, allodynia of the left foot persisted, but the pain reduced from 6 points to 3 points on the numeric rating scale. Partial recovery of amplitude and conduction velocity was confirmed in the follow-up electrodiagnostic study. LESSONS: LDCN injury should be considered in patients who complain of persistent lateral ankle and foot paresthesia or pain after sprain or procedures performed on the lateral side of the ankle. Early diagnosis and treatment can lead to a good prognosis when the LDCN injury has progressed to CRPS.

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.