39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Education plus exercise versus corticosteroid injection use versus a wait and see approach on global outcome and pain from gluteal tendinopathy: prospective, single blinded, randomised clinical trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Objective

          To compare the effects of a programme of load management education plus exercise, corticosteroid injection use, and no treatment on pain and global improvement in individuals with gluteal tendinopathy.

          Design

          Prospective, three arm, single blinded, randomised clinical trial.

          Setting

          Brisbane and Melbourne, Australia.

          Participants

          Individuals aged 35-70 years, with lateral hip pain for more than three months, at least 4/10 on the pain numerical rating scale, and gluteal tendinopathy confirmed by clinical diagnosis and magnetic resonance imaging; and with no corticosteroid injection use in previous 12 months, current physiotherapy, total hip replacement, or neurological conditions.

          Interventions

          A physiotherapy led education and exercise programme of 14 sessions over eight weeks (EDX; n=69), one corticosteroid injection (CSI; n=66), and a wait and see approach (WS; n=69).

          Main outcomes

          Primary outcomes were patient reported global rating of change in hip condition (on an 11 point scale, dichotomised to success and non-success) and pain intensity in the past week (0=no pain, 10=worst pain) at eight weeks, with longer term follow-up at 52 weeks.

          Results

          Of 204 randomised participants (including 167 women; mean age 54.8 years (standard deviation 8.8)), 189 (92.6%) completed 52 week follow-up. Success on the global rating of change was reported at eight weeks by 51/66 EDX, 38/65 CSI, and 20/68 WS participants. EDX and CSI had better global improvement scores than WS (risk difference 49.1% (95% confidence interval 34.6% to 63.5%), number needed to treat 2.0 (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 2.9); 29.2% (13.2% to 45.2%), 3.4 (2.2 to 7.6); respectively). EDX had better global improvement scores than CSI (19.9% (4.7% to 35.0%); 5.0 (2.9 to 21.1)). At eight weeks, reported pain on the numerical rating scale was mean score 1.5 (standard deviation 1.5) for EDX, 2.7 (2.4) for CSI, and 3.8 (2.0) for WS. EDX and CSI participants reported less pain than WS (mean difference −2.2 (95% confidence interval −2.89 to −1.54); −1.2 (−1.85 to −0.50); respectively), and EDX participants reported less pain than CSI (−1.04 (−1.72 to −0.37)). Success on the global rating of change was reported at 52 weeks by 51/65 EDX, 36/63 CSI, and 31/60 WS participants; EDX was better than CSI (20.4% (4.9% to 35.9%); 4.9 (2.8 to 20.6)) and WS (26.8% (11.3% to 42.3%); 3.7 (2.4 to 8.8)). Reported pain at 52 weeks was 2.1 (2.2) for EDX, 2.3 (1.9) for CSI, and 3.2 (2.6) for WS; EDX did not differ from CSI (−0.26 (−1.06 to 0.55)), but both treatments did better than WS (1.13 (−1.93 to −0.33); 0.87 (−1.68 to −0.07); respectively).

          Conclusions

          For gluteal tendinopathy, education plus exercise and corticosteroid injection use resulted in higher rates of patient reported global improvement and lower pain intensity than no treatment at eight weeks. Education plus exercise performed better than corticosteroid injection use. At 52 week follow-up, education plus exercise led to better global improvement than corticosteroid injection use, but no difference in pain intensity. These results support EDX as an effective management approach for gluteal tendinopathy.

          Trial registration

          Prospectively registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001126808).

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Corticosteroid injections, physiotherapy, or a wait-and-see policy for lateral epicondylitis: a randomised controlled trial.

          Lateral epicondylitis is generally treated with corticosteroid injections or physiotherapy. Dutch clinical guidelines recommend a wait-and-see policy. We compared the efficacy of these approaches. Patients with lateral epicondylitis of at least 6 weeks' duration were recruited by family doctors. We randomly allocated eligible patients to 6 weeks of treatment with corticosteroid injections, physiotherapy, or a wait-and-see policy. Outcome measures included general improvement, severity of the main complaint, pain, elbow disability, and patient satisfaction. Severity of elbow complaints, grip strength, and pressure pain threshold were assessed by a research physiotherapist who was unaware of treatment allocation. We assessed all outcomes at 3, 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. The principal analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis. We randomly assigned 185 patients. At 6 weeks, corticosteroid injections were significantly better than all other therapy options for all outcome measures. Success rates were 92% (57) compared with 47% (30) for physiotherapy and 32% (19) for wait-and-see policy. However, recurrence rate in the injection group was high. Long-term differences between injections and physiotherapy were significantly in favour of physiotherapy. Success rates at 52 weeks were 69% (43) for injections, 91% (58) for physiotherapy, and 83% (49) for a wait-and-see policy. Physiotherapy had better results than a wait-and-see policy, but differences were not significant. Patients should be properly informed about the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment options for lateral epicondylitis. The decision to treat with physiotherapy or to adopt a wait-and-see policy might depend on available resources, since the relative gain of physiotherapy is small.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mobilisation with movement and exercise, corticosteroid injection, or wait and see for tennis elbow: randomised trial.

            To investigate the efficacy of physiotherapy compared with a wait and see approach or corticosteroid injections over 52 weeks in tennis elbow. Single blind randomised controlled trial. Community setting, Brisbane, Australia. 198 participants aged 18 to 65 years with a clinical diagnosis of tennis elbow of a minimum six weeks' duration, who had not received any other active treatment by a health practitioner in the previous six months. Eight sessions of physiotherapy; corticosteroid injections; or wait and see. Global improvement, grip force, and assessor's rating of severity measured at baseline, six weeks, and 52 weeks. Corticosteroid injection showed significantly better effects at six weeks but with high recurrence rates thereafter (47/65 of successes subsequently regressed) and significantly poorer outcomes in the long term compared with physiotherapy. Physiotherapy was superior to wait and see in the short term; no difference was seen at 52 weeks, when most participants in both groups reported a successful outcome. Participants who had physiotherapy sought less additional treatment, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, than did participants who had wait and see or injections. Physiotherapy combining elbow manipulation and exercise has a superior benefit to wait and see in the first six weeks and to corticosteroid injections after six weeks, providing a reasonable alternative to injections in the mid to long term. The significant short term benefits of corticosteroid injection are paradoxically reversed after six weeks, with high recurrence rates, implying that this treatment should be used with caution in the management of tennis elbow.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Greater trochanteric pain syndrome: epidemiology and associated factors.

              To describe the prevalence of greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS); to determine whether GTPS is associated with iliotibial band (ITB) tenderness, knee osteoarthritis (OA), body mass index (BMI), or low back pain (LBP); and to assess whether GTPS is associated with reduced hip internal rotation, physical activity, and mobility. Cross-sectional, population-based study. Multicenter observational study. Community-dwelling adults (N=3026) ages 50 to 79 years. Not applicable. Greater trochanteric tenderness to palpation in subjects with complaints of hip pain and no signs of hip OA or generalized myofascial tenderness. The prevalence of unilateral and bilateral GTPS was 15.0% and 8.5% in women and 6.6% and 1.9% men. Odds ratio (OR) for women was 3.37 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.67-4.25), but age and race were not significantly associated with GTPS. In a multivariate model, adjusting for age, sex, ITB tenderness, ipsilateral and contralateral knee OA, BMI, and LBP, ITB tenderness (OR=1.72; 95% CI, 1.34-2.19), knee OA ipsilaterally (OR=3.47; 95% CI, 2.72-4.42) and contralaterally (OR=1.74; 95% CI, 1.32-2.28), and LBP (OR=2.79; 95% CI, 2.22-3.50) were positively related to GTPS. In this complete model, BMI was not associated with GTPS (OR=1.10; 95% CI, 0.80-1.52 when comparing >or=30 with <25kg/m(2)). Hip internal rotation range of motion did not differ based on GTPS status. After multivariate adjustment, GTPS did not alter physical activity score, but bilateal GTPS was significantly associated with a higher 20-meter walk time and chair stand time. The higher prevalence of GTPS in women and in adults with ITB pain or knee OA indicates that altered lower-limb biomechanics may be related to GTPS. Slower functional performance in those with GTPS suggests that the study of targeted rehabilitation may be useful. A longitudinal study will be necessary to identify causal factors and outcomes of interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: senior academic research officer
                Role: Redmond Barry distinguished professor
                Role: physiotec-practice principal
                Role: PhD student
                Role: biostatistician
                Role: professor and NHMRC senior principle research fellow
                Role: senior lecturer
                Role: professor in physiotherapy
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2018
                2 May 2018
                : 361
                : k1662
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia
                [2 ]Centre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, Department of Physiotherapy, University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia
                [3 ]Tarragindi, QLD, Australia
                [4 ]Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Alfred Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
                [5 ]National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Centre of Clinical Research Excellence in Spinal Pain, Injury and Health, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, QLD, Australia
                [6 ]Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Allied Health, LaTrobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: B Vicenzino b.vicenzino@ 123456uq.edu.au
                Article
                melr042341
                10.1136/bmj.k1662
                5930290
                29720374
                b902e918-7314-4472-9ea8-140b0cb6b9c4
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 20 March 2018
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article