Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

The effect of corticosteroid versus platelet-rich plasma injection therapies for the management of lateral epicondylitis: A systematic review

Read this article at

ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      Introduction: Lateral epicondylitis is a common musculoskeletal disorder of the upper limb. Corticosteroid injection has been widely used as a major mode of treatment. However, better understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease led to a major change in treating the disease, with new options including platelet-rich plasma (PRP) are currently used.

      Objectives/research aim: To systematically evaluate the effect of corticosteroid versus PRP injections for the treatment of LE.

      Hypothesis: PRP injections provide longer-term therapeutic effect and less rate of complications compared to corticosteroid injection.

      Level of evidence: Level 2 evidence (4 included studies are of level 1 evidence, 1 study of level 2 evidence).

      Design: Systematic Review (according to PRISMA guidelines).

      Methods: Eleven databases used to search for relevant primary studies comparing the effects of corticosteroid and PRP injections for the treatment of LE. Quality appraisal of studies performed using Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0, CASP Randomised Controlled Trial Checklist, and SIGN Methodology Checklist 2.

      Results: 732 papers were identified. Five randomised controlled trials (250 Patients) met the inclusion criteria. Clinical findings: Corticosteroid injections provided rapid symptomatic improvement with maximum effect at 6/8/8 weeks before symptoms recurrence, whereas PRP showed slower ongoing improvements up to 24/52/104 weeks(3 studies). Corticosteroid showed more rapid symptomatic improvement of symptoms compared to PRP up to the study end-point of 3 months(1 study). Comparable therapeutic effects of corticosteroid and PRP were observed at 6 weeks(1 study). Ultrasonographic Findings: (1) Doppler activity decreased more significantly in patients who received corticosteroid compared to PRP. (2) Reduced tendon thickness and more patients with cortical erosion noted in corticosteroid group whereas increased tendon thickness and less number of patients with common extensor tendon tears noted in PRP group. (3) Fewer patients reported Probe-induced tenderness and oedema in the common extensor tendon in both corticosteroid and PRP groups (2 studies).

      Conclusion: Corticosteroid injections provide rapid therapeutic effect in the short-term with recurrence of symptoms afterwards, compared to the relatively slower but longer-term effect of platelet-rich plasma.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 77

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

      Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

        Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (www.prisma-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Factors affecting wound healing.

           L DiPietro,  S Guo (2010)
          Wound healing, as a normal biological process in the human body, is achieved through four precisely and highly programmed phases: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. For a wound to heal successfully, all four phases must occur in the proper sequence and time frame. Many factors can interfere with one or more phases of this process, thus causing improper or impaired wound healing. This article reviews the recent literature on the most significant factors that affect cutaneous wound healing and the potential cellular and/or molecular mechanisms involved. The factors discussed include oxygenation, infection, age and sex hormones, stress, diabetes, obesity, medications, alcoholism, smoking, and nutrition. A better understanding of the influence of these factors on repair may lead to therapeutics that improve wound healing and resolve impaired wounds.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            [1 ] The University of Salford, Salford UK
            [2 ] Trauma and Orthopaedics department, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust UK
            Author notes
            [* ]Corresponding author: W.O.Ben-Nafa@ 123456edu.salford.ac.uk
            Journal
            SICOT J
            SICOT J
            sicotj
            SICOT-J
            EDP Sciences
            2426-8887
            2018
            21 March 2018
            : 4
            : ( publisher-idID: sicotj/2018/01 )
            29561260 5861901 10.1051/sicotj/2017062 sicotj170055 10.1051/sicotj/2017062
            © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2018

            This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

            Counts
            Figures: 1, Tables: 8, Equations: 0, References: 70, Pages: 16
            Categories
            Elbow
            Review Article

            Comments

            Comment on this article