Comparative Effectiveness of Physical Therapy and Electrophysiotherapy for the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lateral epicondylitis is a common enthesopathy, possibly caused by overuse and repetitive activity. Although nonoperative management is the primary approach for treating lateral epicondylitis, clinical guidelines and the literature fail to identify the most effective nonoperative treatment. Therefore, the authors conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of physical therapy and electrophysiotherapy treatments for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus for peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of physical therapy and electrophysiotherapy treatments. Data related to article characteristics and outcomes (grip strength and pain visual analog scale score) were collected. RESULTS: Twenty-three clinical trials including 1363 participants (mean age ± SD, 47.4 ± 7.5 years; 53.1 percent women) were included in this study. Pain visual analog scale demonstrated significant reductions in scores after treatment with magnetic field [mean difference (95 percent CI), -1.88 (-2.66 to -1.11)], exercise [-0.90 (-1.69 to -0.1)], and acoustic waves [-0.83 (-1.37 to -0.29)] compared with placebo. For grip strength, no treatment modality was found to be significantly effective. A sensitivity analysis that excluded studies with high publication bias and high degrees of heterogeneity produced similar results to the main analysis with the exception of statistically improved grip strength after light therapy [mean difference (95 percent CI), 5.38 (1.71 to 9.04)] and acoustic wave therapy [7.79 (2.44 to 13.15)]. CONCLUSIONS: Electrophysiotherapy treatments should be prioritized over physical therapy. Magnetic field therapy was associated with pain reduction, whereas acoustic wave and light therapy were associated with increased grip strength. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Quality Metrics in Hand Surgery: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 placed an emphasis on measuring the quality of care. However, the issue of how best to measure quality remains in question. Although some surgical specialties frequently rely on quality measures such as the mortality rate, measuring quality in hand surgery necessitates the use of metrics beyond this traditional scope. A review was performed of the potential quality metrics used in the hand surgery literature published after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, to identify current trends in quality measurement and guide efforts to improve the quality of care in hand surgery. METHODS: We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify original research articles within hand surgery to assess how care is being measured. Data extracted from the articles included study characteristics, quality metrics, and the domain(s) of quality. RESULTS: A total of 7,308 articles were identified, and 63 prospective and retrospective articles were included in the analysis. The most common quality measure reported in the hand surgery literature was an outcome measure (100%) and the least common was a structure measure (30.2%). The most common metrics were pain (44.4%) and patient-reported measures (41.3%). Effectiveness (42.9%) was the most frequently assessed domain of quality, whereas efficiency (3.2%) was the least studied. CONCLUSIONS: We identified quality measures used in contemporary hand surgery literature and found a substantial variation in the representation of quality metrics. Structure and process measures can be leveraged to provide a more holistic assessment of the quality of care in hand surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although outcome measurements are critical to understanding effectiveness, structure and process measures should be considered and reported as necessary, because these metrics may influence treatment outcomes and the development of quality measures.

Efficacy of Nonoperative Treatments for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lateral epicondylitis is a common overuse injury affecting approximately 1 to 3 percent of the population. Although symptoms may disappear spontaneously within 1 year, the clinical guidelines for conservative treatment are not clear. The authors' objective was to examine the outcomes of nonsurgical treatments for lateral epicondylitis through a meta-analysis and provide a treatment recommendation using the available evidence. METHODS: The authors searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify primary research articles studying conservative treatments (electrophysiotherapy, physical therapy, and injections) for lateral epicondylitis. The authors included randomized controlled trials published in peer-reviewed journals. Data related to outcomes (pain, grip strength, Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation score, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score) and complications were extracted. RESULTS: Fifty-eight randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Electrophysiotherapy was effective in improving pain [mean difference, -10.0 (95 percent CI, -13.8 to -6.1)], Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation score [mean difference, -10.7 (95 percent CI, -16.3 to -5.0)], and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score [mean difference, -11.9 (95 percent CI, -15.8 to -7.9)]; and physical therapy improved pain [mean difference, -6.0 (95 percent CI, -9.7 to -2.3)] and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation scores [mean difference, -7.5 (95 percent CI, -11.8 to -3.2)] compared to placebo. Injections did not improve any outcome measures. Patients who received electrophysiotherapy and injections reported higher adverse effects than physical therapy patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received electrophysiotherapy and physical therapy reported statistically and clinically improved scores in pain and function compared to placebo. Injections may put patients at higher risk for adverse effects compared to other conservative treatments. When managing lateral epicondylitis conservatively, electrophysiotherapy and physical therapy should be prioritized before other interventions. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.