Prolotherapy: A Narrative Review of Mechanisms, Techniques, and Protocols, and Evidence for Common Musculoskeletal Conditions.

Prolotherapy is a nonsurgical regenerative technique that allows small amounts of irritant solution to be injected into the site of painful tendon and ligament insertions to promote the growth of healthy cells and tissues. The goal of prolotherapy is to stimulate growth factors that may strengthen attachments and reduce pain. Prolotherapy injection technique is centered around a focused physical examination and strong anatomic knowledge for maximized results. Prolotherapy is beneficial in a variety of different musculoskeletal conditions, including, but not limited to, lateral epicondylosis, rotator cuff tendinopathy, plantar fasciitis, Achilles tendinopathy, osteoarthritis, low back pain, sacroiliac joint pain, and TMJ laxity.

Non-operative orthobiologic use for rotator cuff disorders and glenohumeral osteoarthritis: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain from rotator cuff pathology and glenohumeral osteoarthritis is a common entity encountered in musculoskeletal practices. Orthobiologic agents are being increasingly used as a treatment option and understanding their safety and efficacy is necessary. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the available evidence for orthobiologic use in rotator cuff and glenohumeral pathology. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken following PRISMA guidelines. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies evaluating non-operative treatment with prolotherapy, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), or medicinal signaling cells (MSCs) for rotator cuff pathology and glenohumeral osteoarthritis were included. Bias risk assessments used were the Cochrane tool and Newcastle-Ottawa score. RESULTS: The search yielded 852 potential articles, of which 20 met the inclusion criteria with a breakdown of 5 prolotherapy, 13 PRP, and 2 MSC. Sixteen studies were RCTs and 4 were cohort studies. Six studies were deemed "low risk of bias or good quality". Efficacy results were mixed, and no serious adverse events were reported from orthobiologic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Orthobiologics offer a relatively safe management option with inconclusive evidence for or against its use for rotator cuff pathology. No studies on glenohumeral osteoarthritis met the inclusion criteria. Adoption of standardized preparation reporting and consistent use of functional outcome measures is imperative for future studies to consider.

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.

Regenerative Sports Medicine: Past, Present, and Future (Adapted From the PASSOR Legacy Award Presentation; AAPMR; October 2016).

Regenerative medicine has shown dramatic expanse and evolution in the past decade. Within that milieu, physiatrists are taking an active role in research, clinical care delivery, and education. The purpose of this review is to provide a balance among evidence, theory, experience, clinical trends, and the foreseeable future. We focus on the literature that reports the research with the best methodology in each practice area, recognizing that the level of evidence varies substantially among different treatment modalities and conditions. The following elements are included: an overview of the evolution of currently available regenerative techniques, evidence base for each available modality (prolotherapy, platelet rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate and stem cells, adipose-derived stem cells, and amniotic tissue products), general principles in the application of these treatments, and discussion and a vision of what lies ahead. We expect that practitioners will use this review to facilitate clinical decision making and to provide a core knowledge base to assist when counseling patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Myofascial pain syndrome treatments.

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a regional pain disorder caused by taut bands of muscle fibers in skeletal muscles called myofascial trigger points. MPS is a common disorder, often diagnosed and treated by physiatrists. Treatment strategies for MPS include exercises, patient education, and trigger point injection. Pharmacologic interventions are also common, and a variety of analgesics, antiinflammatories, antidepressants, and other medications are used in clinical practice. This review explores the various treatment options for MPS, including those therapies that target myofascial trigger points and common secondary symptoms.

Prolotherapy versus corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lateral epicondylosis: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of prolotherapy versus corticosteroid injection for the treatment of chronic lateral epicondylosis. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized controlled, double-blinded study. SETTING: Academic, tertiary, outpatient, rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four subjects with clinically determined chronic (ie, lasting 3 months or longer) lateral epicondylosis were recruited. All subjects noted pain intensity levels significant enough to prevent the participation in activities, such as playing racquet sports or lifting heavy objects. METHODS: Subjects were assigned to receive either prolotherapy or corticosteroid injection for treatment of chronic lateral epicondylosis. Each subject underwent injection at baseline followed by a second injection 1 month later. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Visual analog scale (VAS) self-rating of pain, quadruple visual analog scale (QVAS), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH) were measured at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months' follow-up. RESULTS: Within each group, the analysis demonstrated statistically significant improvements in both VAS and DASH within the prolotherapy group with significant changes noted from baseline to 3 months (VAS: Δ2.38; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.04-3.71, P = .004 and DASH: Δ19.89; 95% CI 5.73-34.04, P = .01), and baseline to 6 months (VAS: Δ2.63; 95% CI 0.61-4.62, P = .017 and DASH: Δ21.76; 9% CI 7.43-36.09, P = .009) after initial treatment, as well as in the QVAS from baseline to 3 months. The steroid group demonstrated a clinically and statistically significant change for DASH only at both 3-month (Δ13.33; 95% CI 0.68-25.99, P = .04) and 6-month (Δ15.56; 95% CI 1.30-29.81, P = .04) follow-up. Comparison of the subjects completing the study revealed no significant differences between the prolotherapy and the corticosteroid group for change in VAS, QVAS, or DASH, although the study lacked sufficient power to draw conclusions from this finding. Eighty-three percent of the subjects were satisfied with their overall improvement during the course of the study, without significant differences revealed between groups. Aside from injection-associated pain, no adverse reactions were reported. Seventeen subjects completed study protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Both prolotherapy and corticosteroid therapy were generally well tolerated and appeared to provide benefit of long duration. Small sample size precludes determining whether one therapy is superior to the other. Larger, controlled trials appear feasible and warranted on the basis of these findings.

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with prolotherapy.

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven to be very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing among available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

Focused review: myofascial pain.

Myofascial pain is defined as pain that originates from myofascial trigger points in skeletal muscle. It is prevalent in regional musculoskeletal pain syndromes, either alone or in combination with other pain generators. The appropriate evaluation and management of myofascial pain is an important part of musculoskeletal rehabilitation of regional axial and limb pain syndromes. This article reviews the current hypotheses regarding the pathophysiology of myofascial trigger points and muscle pain. A critical evidence-based review of the pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, alternative medicine, and exercise treatments of myofascial pain is provided, as well as future research directions. OVERALL LEARNING OBJECTIVE: To review critically the state of the art knowledge of myofascial pain, including pathophysiology and comprehensive management. Areas of future research are identified.