A comparison between effectiveness of gluteal trigger point and epidural steroid injection in lumbosacral canal stenosis patients: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Lumbosacral Spinal Stenosis (LSS) is a degenerative spine disease and a major cause of pain and disability, especially in geriatrics. Primary symptom control in patients with LSS includes conservative treatment and non-surgical methods. In this study, we aimed to compare the effect of steroid injection via epidural and gluteal trigger point techniques. METHODS: Patients aged 40-75 years old who had pain and other clinical signs of spinal stenosis in the last 6 months were included in our study and divided into two groups of gluteal trigger point (TP) or epidural steroid injection (ESI). The patients were evaluated based on the visual analog scale (VAS), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Quebec back pain disability scales during their pre-injection period and 2 weeks after follow-ups till 8 weeks. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were included in our study. The TP group had a significant decrease in comparison with their follow-ups; however, in the epidural group, the significant decrease was only observed compared to the pre-injection period and the scores did not have any significant decreases after the second week regarding the ODI, RQM, and VAS scales. The TP group demonstrated significantly higher scores of decreases of ODI and Quebec score compared to the epidural group at weeks 4 and 8. Regarding RQM, the TP groups demonstrated significantly higher scores of decreases compared to the epidural group at weeks 2, 4 and 8. (p < 0.001 p = 0.008, and p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Both epidural and TP steroid injection significantly reduced the patients' pain and improved their QoL and function; however, more satisfactory results were observed in the TP group during the patients' follow-ups, while the epidural group demonstrated only statistically significant improvement during the short-term follow-up.

The Efficacy of Harpagophytum procumbens (Teltonal) in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Active-Controlled Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: The high prevalence of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a major cause of disability among elders. NSAIDs are recommended to reduce KOA patients' symptoms, but their adverse side effects limit their consumption. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of Harpagophytum procumbens compared to a routine NSAID (meloxicam) on pain reduction and functional improvement of KOA patients. Patients and Methods. Sixty patients aged 40-60 years, with painful knee osteoarthritis (grades 1-2 of Kellgren-Lawrence scale) for at least one month, were randomized into two groups with different routine medication periods. Group A consisted of daily administration of two Harpagophytum procumbens (Teltonal) tablets (2∗480 mg) for one month, and group B consisted of daily administration of meloxicam (15 mg) for ten days. The visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Knee Scale (OKS), and patient satisfaction were evaluated at the baseline and after 2, 4, and 8 weeks. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between demographic characteristics, pain intensity, and function scores before the treatment. VAS, OKS, and WOMAC scores improved in both groups (p < 0.001) over time, but no significant superiority was shown; after 8 weeks: VAS (Teltonal (4.80 ± 1.80) vs. meloxicam (5.06 ± 1.43)), OKS (34.06 ± 4.38, 34.00 ± 7.87, Teltonal vs. meloxicam, respectively), and WOMAC scores (25.73 ± 10.11 Teltonal vs. 26.20 ± 13.94, meloxicam). CONCLUSION: Teltonal is an effective and safe treatment in patients with mild KOA in the short term. However, no significant superiority was shown in using Teltonal or meloxicam, in people who cannot take NSAIDs, it can be a good alternative, although difference in medication periods should be considered.

The Efficacy of Ozone Prolotherapy Compared to Intra-Articular Hypertonic Saline Injection in Reducing Pain and Improving the Function of Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis is a common disease that is associated with chronic pain and disability in patients. Prolotherapy is a complementary therapeutic approach for improving pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. We aimed to compare the effect of hypertonic saline with ozone plus hypertonic saline in improving the symptoms of osteoarthritis in the patients. Materials and Method. In this clinical trial, thirty-four adults with painful primary knee osteoarthritis for at least three months were randomized to two groups: ozone plus hypertonic saline 5% and hypertonic saline 5% alone. Prolotherapy and thrice follow-up with two-week intervals were done. The outcome measures included Oxford Knee Scale (OKS), Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS), which were obtained from the patients before the injection and after the 2nd and 4th weeks after the start of the study. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 60.12 ± 7.54 years. There were no statistically significant differences between demographic characteristics before the injection between the two groups (p > 0.05). The results showed that VAS and OKS values decreased over time (p < 0.001) in each group, but there was no significant difference in the reduction of those between the two treatment groups (p = 0.734 and p = 0.734, respectively). Both interventions improved the mean values of WOMAC pain, WOMAC stiffness, WOMAC act, and WOMAC total. However, there was no significant difference in WOMAC pain reduction rate (p = 0.465), WOMAC stiffness rate (p = 0.656), WOMAC act rate (p = 0.376), and WOMAC total rate between the two methods (p = 0.528). CONCLUSION: The results showed that intra-articular prolozone therapy and hypertonic saline injection can lead to improvement of pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis at the same status without any significant difference.

Efficacy of Piroxicam Mesotherapy in Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the most common degenerative diseases that lead to pain and disability. Oral NSAIDs are effective drugs used to alleviate symptoms in patients with KOA, but they have several important complications, especially in the elderly. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of mesotherapy on pain reduction and improvement of functioning in patients with KOA. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with KOA, grade 2-3 of the Kellgren-Lawrence scale, were randomized into two groups: the mesotherapy group, in which two injections were applied with piroxicam at a 10-day interval, and the oral group, in which piroxicam was prescribed for 10 days. The patients were evaluated before the treatment and 2, 4, and 8 weeks after it using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oxford Knee Scare (OKS), and Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC, Persian version). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in demographic characteristics and baseline pain and function scores between the two groups. After 2, 4, and 8 weeks of follow-up, VAS, WOMAC, and OKS scores significantly improved in both groups (in the mesotherapy group: p value <0.001 in all three scores and in the oral group: p value <0.001 in the VAS scale and p value <0.05 in WOMAC and OKS scores). There was no significant difference between the two groups at any time in the VAS score, but improvement in WOMAC and OKS scales in the mesotherapy group was significantly better (p value <0.05 in both scales [p value <0.03 in OKS and p value <0.02 in WOMAC scales]). Side effects in both groups were not serious: limited heart burn in 32.2% of the total subjects in the oral group and pain at the injection site in 3.2% and bruises in 38.7% of the total subjects in the mesotherapy group. CONCLUSION: Mesotherapy is an effective and safe treatment modality in patients with mild-to-moderate KOA in the short term. This trial is registered with IRCT2017052434113N1.

Comparative effectiveness of intra-articular prolotherapy versus peri-articular prolotherapy on pain reduction and improving function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a common degenerative disease. Prolotherapy is an alternative therapy used in multiple musculoskeletal disorders. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of intra-articular dextrose injection versus peri-articular prolotherapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS: Fifty-two adults with painful primary knee osteoarthritis for at least three months were randomized to intra- and peri-articular injection groups. Prolotherapy was done twice with two week intervals. The outcome measures included the Oxford Knee Scale (OKS), Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), which were obtained from patients before the first injection at the base line and after the second injection at the fourth and eighth weeks. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between demographic characteristics; before the injection, pain intensity, OKS, and WOMAC scores were approximately equal between the two groups. After dextrose prolotherapy, VAS, OKS, and WOMAC scores improved from baseline through the fourth and eighth weeks in both groups without any superiority between the two methods of injections (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Dextrose prolotherapy either intra- or peri-articular injection resulted in significant improvement, so it could be an inexpensive and effective management of knee osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered as a clinical trial under registration ID of IRCT2016091229795N1 at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (http://www.irct.ir). FUNDING: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, or publication of this article.