Added value of ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle tenotomy over hydrodissection and physiotherapy in chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy: a pilot randomized controlled trial

IF 1.3 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of Ultrasonography Pub Date : 2023-10-30 DOI:10.15557/jou.2023.0040
Laurens Koonen, Martin van Amerongen, Katrijn Smulders, Stephanie Mangesius, Gabriella Cerna, Andrea Klauser, Erich Mur, Marina Obradov
{"title":"Added value of ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle tenotomy over hydrodissection and physiotherapy in chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy: a pilot randomized controlled trial","authors":"Laurens Koonen, Martin van Amerongen, Katrijn Smulders, Stephanie Mangesius, Gabriella Cerna, Andrea Klauser, Erich Mur, Marina Obradov","doi":"10.15557/jou.2023.0040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim of the study: There is no consensus on the most suitable non-surgical treatment of chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy. The aim of this pilot randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the size of effect of ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle tenotomy. Material and methods: Three intervention arms were formed: 1) percutaneous needle tenotomy, hydrodissection, and physiotherapy; 2) hydrodissection and physiotherapy; and 3) physiotherapy alone. Patients with chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy were randomized. Clinical endpoints included multiple questionnaires after three months: Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain at rest and during activity, and EuroQol 5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L). Results: Thirty patients were included of 128 screened. The QuickDASH score improved in the percutaneous needle tenotomy and physiotherapy group, but not in the hydrodissection group. The NRS pain at rest and during activity improved more in the percutaneous needle tenotomy (resp. –2 and –2) and hydrodissection (resp. –3 and –3) groups than in the physiotherapy (resp. +1 and –1) group. The EQ-5D-5L improved similarly in all groups. Conclusions: Patients receiv- ing percutaneous needle tenotomy and/or hydrodissection may show better results in terms of pain but not in their functional outcomes compared to those who received physiotherapy alone. The size of effect, however, is small, so a large sample size is needed for a future randomized controlled trial to further in- vestigate these results.","PeriodicalId":45612,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ultrasonography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ultrasonography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15557/jou.2023.0040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim of the study: There is no consensus on the most suitable non-surgical treatment of chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy. The aim of this pilot randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the size of effect of ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle tenotomy. Material and methods: Three intervention arms were formed: 1) percutaneous needle tenotomy, hydrodissection, and physiotherapy; 2) hydrodissection and physiotherapy; and 3) physiotherapy alone. Patients with chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy were randomized. Clinical endpoints included multiple questionnaires after three months: Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain at rest and during activity, and EuroQol 5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L). Results: Thirty patients were included of 128 screened. The QuickDASH score improved in the percutaneous needle tenotomy and physiotherapy group, but not in the hydrodissection group. The NRS pain at rest and during activity improved more in the percutaneous needle tenotomy (resp. –2 and –2) and hydrodissection (resp. –3 and –3) groups than in the physiotherapy (resp. +1 and –1) group. The EQ-5D-5L improved similarly in all groups. Conclusions: Patients receiv- ing percutaneous needle tenotomy and/or hydrodissection may show better results in terms of pain but not in their functional outcomes compared to those who received physiotherapy alone. The size of effect, however, is small, so a large sample size is needed for a future randomized controlled trial to further in- vestigate these results.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超声引导下经皮针肌腱切开术对慢性肘关节外侧病变的附加价值:一项随机对照试验
研究目的:对于慢性肘关节外侧病变的非手术治疗方法尚无共识。本试验的目的是评估超声引导下经皮针刺肌腱切开术的效果大小。材料与方法:形成三个干预臂:1)经皮针刺肌腱切开术、水解剖、物理治疗;2)水解剖和物理治疗;3)单独进行物理治疗。慢性肘关节外侧病变患者随机分组。临床终点包括三个月后的多项问卷调查:手臂、肩膀和手的快速残疾(QuickDASH),静止和活动时疼痛的数值评定量表(NRS),以及EuroQol 5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L)。结果:筛选128例患者,纳入30例。经皮针刺肌腱切开术和物理治疗组的QuickDASH评分有所改善,而水解剖组则无改善。静息时和活动时的NRS疼痛在经皮针刺肌腱切开术中得到了更大的改善。-2和-2)和hydrodissection(见。-3和-3)组比物理治疗组(p < 0.05)。+1和-1)组。EQ-5D-5L在所有组中都有类似的改善。结论:与单独接受物理治疗的患者相比,接受经皮针刺肌腱切开术和/或水解剖的患者可能在疼痛方面表现出更好的结果,但在功能方面却没有更好的结果。然而,效应的大小很小,因此未来的随机对照试验需要更大的样本量来进一步调查这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Ultrasonography
Journal of Ultrasonography RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
The ileocecal valve in transabdominal ultrasound Part 1: Sonographic anatomy and technique Overview for developing Delphi-based interdisciplinary consensus statements on imaging: pros and cons The pattern of renal artery Doppler indices in patients with sickle cell disease Advantages of UltrafastTM ultrasound in the screening for renal artery disease Uterine vascular abnormalities linked to pregnancy complications: color and power Doppler-assisted transvaginal ultrasound evaluation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1