Dataset Information

Clinical comparative effectiveness of acupuncture versus manual therapy treatment of lateral epicondylitis: feasibility randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: Background:Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a challenging condition for clinicians, and research has yet not proven the superiority of one specific treatment approach. However, manual therapy (elbow mobilization) in addition to eccentric exercise has been found to be superior to exercise alone. As well, acupuncture is effective in short-term pain relief when compared with sham treatment, but there is little knowledge on the comparative effectiveness of manual therapy and acupuncture treatment of LE in terms of pain relief. The primary objective of this pilot trial was to assess the feasibility (retention and adherence rates) of performing a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to explore the clinical effectiveness of acupuncture and manual therapy treatment of LE. Methods:This pilot trial took place in an outpatient interdisciplinary institute of sports medicine and rehabilitation in Oslo, Norway. Thirty-six adults with clinically diagnosed LE were randomly allocated into one of three groups: eccentric exercise alone, eccentric exercise plus acupuncture, or eccentric exercise plus manual therapy for a 12-week treatment period. Primary outcomes were patient retention and adherence rates. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported pain (NRS), level of disability (Quick-DASH), and participant's satisfaction with treatment and global perceived effect. Results:Nine (69%) patients in the acupuncture group completed the 1-year follow-up, compared to eight (67%) in the manual therapy group and five (45%) in exercise alone. Our goal was to demonstrate a retention rate above 80% to avoid serious threats to validity, but the result was lower than expected. The majority of participants (64%) in both treatment groups received only three-treatment sessions; the reasons included non-attendance or recovery from pain. Secondary outcomes support the rationale for conduction of an RCT. There were no adverse advents related to study participation. Conclusions:Based on differences in pain relief between groups, patient retention, and adherence rates, an RCT seems to be feasible to assess treatment effectiveness more precisely. In a future definitive trial, greater dropout may be reduced by maintaining contact with the participants in the exercise alone group throughout the intervention, and objective assessments might be considered. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02321696.

SUBMITTER: Bostrom K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6731611 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical comparative effectiveness of acupuncture versus manual therapy treatment of lateral epicondylitis: feasibility randomized clinical trial.

Bostrøm Katrine K Mæhlum Sverre S Cvancarova Småstuen Milada M Storheim Kjersti K

Pilot and feasibility studies 20190907

<h4>Background</h4>Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a challenging condition for clinicians, and research has yet not proven the superiority of one specific treatment approach. However, manual therapy (elbow mobilization) in addition to eccentric exercise has been found to be superior to exercise alone. As well, acupuncture is effective in short-term pain relief when compared with sham treatment, but there is little knowledge on the comparative effectiveness of manual therapy and acupuncture treatme ...[more]

PMID: 31516727

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The aim of this study was to compare the short-term and intermediate-term efficacy of acupuncture plus fire needle therapy with that of acupuncture alone in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (LE). METHODS:Thirty-eight patients with LE who had persisted for at least 2 months were enrolled in this prospective, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled pilot trial. Twenty-one patients were randomized to the acupuncture plus fire needle group and 17 to the acupuncture-only group. The primary outcome was the visual analog scale pain score for the previous 24?hours and the secondary outcomes were the maximum grip strength, Patient-rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire score, and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-form Health Survey score. The values at baseline (pretreatment), at the end of treatment, and at 3 months after treatment were used to assess the short-term and intermediate-term effects of treatment. The data were analyzed using the Chi-square test and t test. RESULTS:Within-group analyses showed better results for acupuncture plus fire needle therapy in the short term and intermediate term. Differences in the severity of pain and secondary outcomes were significant in the intermediate term in the acupuncture group. At the end of treatment, none of the differences in outcome scores were significant, except for maximum grip strength in the affected hand in the acupuncture group. No significant between-group differences in short-term or intermediate-term outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION:Acupuncture plus fire needle therapy was effective in the short term in patients seeking improvement of LE. Twelve treatments were effective for relieving pain and improving disability in the intermediate term in patients with chronic LE in both study groups. The findings of the pilot study confirm the feasibility of proceeding to a larger randomized controlled study of the longer-term effects of acupuncture plus fire needle therapy in patients with LE.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the short-term outcomes between arthroscopic and open procedures for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Because a significant portion of patients have worker's compensation (WC), the outcomes in these subgroups were separately analyzed.MethodsA retrospective analysis of patients who had surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis by a single surgeon from 2010 to 2017 was performed. Patients who were symptomatic after 9 months of conservative treatments including nonsteroidal medications, steroid injections, and physical therapy were offered surgical intervention. The type of surgery was selected after detailed consultation with the patient. Charts were reviewed for preoperative pain, grip strength as measured by dynamometer, smoking status, and WC status. Postoperative assessments included pain and grip strength at 6 weeks and time taken to return to full duty. Two groups were compared using unpaired t test and chi-squared tests. Results were compared with similar studies in the literature.ResultsThe study included 30 patients in the arthroscopic debridement group and 42 patients in the open tenotomy and reinsertion group. Eighteen patients (25%) had WC. Compared with the open group, the arthroscopic group had earlier return to full duty (mean 7.13 weeks, confidence interval [CI] 6.21 to 8.05 versu mean of 12.22 weeks, CI 11.21 to 13.24; P < .001) and less time for complete pain relief (mean 7.4 weeks, CI 7.02 to 7.93 versus 9.5 , CI 8.68 to 10.44; P = .043). No difference was seen among the groups in terms of unfavorable outcome (persistent pain and recurrence of pain), JAMAR hand dynamometer score at 6 weeks, and visual analog score at 6 weeks. A total of 11 patients (15%) had unfavorable outcome. Incidence of unfavorable outcomes was more in patients with WC insurance (36% in WC versus 7% in non-WC; P = .023). No association was seen with smoking status. WC patients also had a longer time to return to full duty (16.68 weeks for WC versus 7.65 weeks for non-WC; P < .001) and a longer time to get complete pain relief (12.4 weeks for WC versus 7.5 weeks for non-WC; P < .001).ConclusionThe arthroscopic technique offers advantages of earlier return to work and shorter recovery period along with additional advantages of joint inspection and ability to treat coexisting pathologies. WC patients had a longer time to return to full duty and time for complete pain relief.Level of evidenceLevel III, retrospective comparative study.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of manual acupuncture as prophylactic treatment for acupuncture naive patients with episodic migraine without aura.DesignMulticentre, randomised, controlled clinical trial with blinded participants, outcome assessment, and statistician.SettingSeven hospitals in China, 5 June 2016 to 15 November 2018.Participants150 acupuncture naive patients with episodic migraine without aura.Interventions20 sessions of manual acupuncture at true acupuncture points plus usual care, 20 sessions of non-penetrating sham acupuncture at heterosegmental non-acupuncture points plus usual care, or usual care alone over 8 weeks.Main outcome measuresChange in migraine days and migraine attacks per four weeks during weeks 1-20 after randomisation compared with baseline (four weeks before randomisation).ResultsAmong 150 randomised patients (mean age 36.5 (SD 11.4) years; 123 (82%) women), 147 were included in the full analysis set. Compared with sham acupuncture, manual acupuncture resulted in a significantly greater reduction in migraine days at weeks 13 to 20 and a significantly greater reduction in migraine attacks at weeks 17 to 20. The reduction in mean number of migraine days was 3.5 (SD 2.5) for manual versus 2.4 (3.4) for sham (adjusted difference -1.4, 95% confidence interval -2.4 to -0.3; P=0.005) at weeks 13 to 16 and 3.9 (3.0) for manual versus 2.2 (3.2) for sham (adjusted difference -2.1, -2.9 to -1.2; P<0.001) at weeks 17 to 20. At weeks 17 to 20, the reduction in mean number of attacks was 2.3 (1.7) for manual versus 1.6 (2.5) for sham (adjusted difference -1.0, -1.5 to -0.5; P<0.001). No severe adverse events were reported. No significant difference was seen in the proportion of patients perceiving needle penetration between manual acupuncture and sham acupuncture (79% v 75%; P=0.891).ConclusionsTwenty sessions of manual acupuncture was superior to sham acupuncture and usual care for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine without aura. These results support the use of manual acupuncture in patients who are reluctant to use prophylactic drugs or when prophylactic drugs are ineffective, and it should be considered in future guidelines.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02765581.

Project description:BackgroundExtracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been used in various musculoskeletal disorders, including lateral epicondylitis. However, in 2005, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that ESWT provides minimal or no benefit in terms of pain and function in patients with lateral epicondylitis. Since the review, several randomized controlled trials including different types of ESWT such as radial type for lateral epicondylitis have been published. Investigations of the effect modifiers such as symptom and follow-up duration on the effects of ESWT on lateral epicondylitis have not been performed.Questions/purposes(1) Does ESWT reduce pain and improve grip strength in patients with lateral epicondylitis? (2) Which type of ESWT, radial or focused, is more effective? (3) Is the duration of symptoms associated with the efficacy of ESWT for lateral epicondylitis? (4) Do improvements in pain scores remain in patients with longer follow-up?MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched up to July 2019 for articles published in English or Korean. Studies were included if patient allocation was randomized, the sample was composed of patients with lateral epicondylitis, interventions were ESWT (focused or radial), comparison group only received sham stimulation or no additional treatment, and the study outcome was pain intensity or grip strength. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Twelve studies including 1104 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The mean difference for pain reduction and improvement in grip strength was calculated.ResultsThe meta-analysis showed no clinically important difference in the VAS score (2.48 ± 7.55 versus 3.17 ± 9.78, mean difference -0.68 [95% confidence interval -1.17 to -0.19]; p = 0.006) and grip strength (38.02 ± 70.56 versus 34.85 ± 108.26, mean difference 3.33 [95% CI 0.93 to 5.73]; p = 0.007) after ESWT relative to the comparison group's score. Even though radial ESWT showed more improvement than focused, the mean difference for VAS did not exceed the minimal clinically important differences threshold. There were no clinically important effects on the VAS scores of patients with lateral epicondylitis (2.78 ± 5.57 versus 3.92 ± 6.29, mean difference -1.13 [95% CI -1.84 to -0.42]; p = 0.002) and focused ESWT did not improve pain in patients with lateral epicondylitis. In the subgroup analysis, ESWT was effective in patients with a symptom duration of more than 6 months (2.28 ± 8.48 versus 3.31 ± 11.81, mean difference -0.95 [95% CI -1.75 to -0.15]; p = 0.02) but not for those with shorter symptom duration. The effects did not last beyond 24 weeks (2.52 ± 9.19 versus 3.34 ± 5.93, mean difference -0.82 [95% CI -2.57 to 0.93]; p = 0.36).ConclusionsESWT did not show clinically important improvement in pain reduction and grip strength. Radial ESWT, symptom duration of longer than 6 months, and short follow-up duration (less than 24 weeks) were related to better effects. Further studies are needed to determine the appropriate protocol and elucidate the effects according to the intervention type and specific disease condition.Level of evidenceLevel I, therapeutic study.

Dataset Information

Clinical comparative effectiveness of acupuncture versus manual therapy treatment of lateral epicondylitis: feasibility randomized clinical trial.

Publications

Clinical comparative effectiveness of acupuncture versus manual therapy treatment of lateral epicondylitis: feasibility randomized clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets