Dataset Information

Effects of dextrose prolotherapy on tendinopathy, fasciopathy, and ligament injuries, fact or myth?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Prolotherapy or proliferative therapy is a treatment option for damaged connective tissues involving the injection of a solution (proliferant) which theoretically causes an initial cell injury and a subsequent "proliferant" process of wound healing via modulation of the inflammatory process. Nonetheless, the benefits of dextrose prolotherapy have not been adequately evaluated. Therefore, the present study assesses the effectiveness and superiority of prolotherapy separately in treating dense fibrous connective tissue injuries. METHODS:PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched from the earliest record to February 18, 2019. This study included randomized controlled trials whichBoth analysis at individual studies level and pooled meta-analysis were performed. RESULTS:Ten trials involving 358 participants were included for review. At study level, the majority of comparisons did not reveal significant differences between dextrose prolotherapy and no treatment (or placebo) regarding pain control. The meta-analysis showed dextrose prolotherapy was effective in improving activity only at immediate follow-up (i.e., 0-1 month) (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-1.50; I?=?0%); and superior to corticosteroid injections only in pain reduction at short-term follow-up (i.e., 1-3 month) (SMD: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.14-1.27; I?=?51%). No other significant SMDs were found in this analysis. CONCLUSIONS:There is insufficient evidence to support the clinical benefits of dextrose prolotherapy in managing dense fibrous tissue injuries. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted to establish the benefits of dextrose prolotherapy. REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO (CRD42019129044).

SUBMITTER: Chung MW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7668443 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of dextrose prolotherapy on tendinopathy, fasciopathy, and ligament injuries, fact or myth?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chung Meng-Wu MW Hsu Chih-Yang CY Chung Wen-Kuei WK Lin Yen-Nung YN

Medicine 20201101 46

<h4>Objectives</h4>Prolotherapy or proliferative therapy is a treatment option for damaged connective tissues involving the injection of a solution (proliferant) which theoretically causes an initial cell injury and a subsequent "proliferant" process of wound healing via modulation of the inflammatory process. Nonetheless, the benefits of dextrose prolotherapy have not been adequately evaluated. Therefore, the present study assesses the effectiveness and superiority of prolotherapy separately in ...[more]

PMID: 33181700

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionProlotherapy and other injections, primarily acting on pathways associated with maladaptive tissue repair, are recommended for recalcitrant chronic soft tissue injuries (CSTI). However, selection of injection is challenging due to mixed results. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare prolotherapy with other therapies, particularly injections, for CSTI and establish robustness of the results.MethodologyPubmed, Medline, SPORTDiscus and Google scholar were searched from inception to 4th January 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving injection therapies (e.g. blood derivatives, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, botulinum toxin) for CSTI. The primary and secondary outcomes were pain and function, respectively, at (or nearest to) 6 months. Effect size (ES) was presented as standardised mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI). Frequentist random effect NMA was used to generate the overall estimates, subgroup estimates (by region and measurement time point) and sensitivity analyses.ResultsA total of 91 articles (87 RCTs; 5859 participants) involving upper limb (74%), lower limb (23%) and truncal/hip (3%) injuries were included. At all time points, prolotherapy had no statistically significant pain benefits over other therapies. This observation remained unchanged when tested under various assumptions and with exclusion of studies with high risk of bias. Although prolotherapy did not offer statistically significant functional improvement compared to most therapies, its ES was consistently better than non-injections and corticosteroid injection for both outcomes. At selected time points and for selected injuries, prolotherapy demonstrated potentially better pain improvement over placebo (<4 months: shoulder [ES 0.65; 95% CI 0.00 to 1.30]; 4-8 months: elbow [ES 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 1.70]; >8 months: shoulder [ES 2.08; 95% CI 1.49, to 2.68]). Injections generally produced greater ES when combined with non-injection therapy.ConclusionWhile clinical outcomes were generally comparable across types of injection therapy, prolotherapy may be used preferentially for selected conditions at selected times.

Project description:This study determined whether injection with hypertonic dextrose and morrhuate sodium (prolotherapy) using a pragmatic, clinically determined injection schedule for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) results in improved knee pain, function, and stiffness compared to baseline status.This was a prospective three-arm uncontrolled study with 1-year follow-up.The setting was outpatient.The participants were 38 adults who had at least 3 months of symptomatic KOA and who were in the control groups of a prior prolotherapy randomized controlled trial (RCT) (Prior-Control), were ineligible for the RCT (Prior-Ineligible), or were eligible but declined the RCT (Prior-Declined).The injection sessions at occurred at 1, 5, and 9 weeks with as-needed treatment at weeks 13 and 17. Extra-articular injections of 15% dextrose and 5% morrhuate sodium were done at peri-articular tendon and ligament insertions. A single intra-articular injection of 6?mL 25% dextrose was performed through an inferomedial approach.The primary outcome measure was the validated Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). The secondary outcome measure was the Knee Pain Scale and postprocedure opioid medication use and participant satisfaction.The Prior-Declined group reported the most severe baseline WOMAC score (p=0.02). Compared to baseline status, participants in the Prior-Control group reported a score change of 12.4±3.5 points (19.5%, p=0.002). Prior-Decline and Prior-Ineligible groups improved by 19.4±7.0 (42.9%, p=0.05) and 17.8±3.9 (28.4%, p=0.008) points, respectively; 55.6% of Prior-Control, 75% of Prior-Decline, and 50% of Prior-Ineligible participants reported score improvement in excess of the 12-point minimal clinical important difference on the WOMAC measure. Postprocedure opioid medication resulted in rapid diminution of prolotherapy injection pain. Satisfaction was high and there were no adverse events.Prolotherapy using dextrose and morrhuate sodium injections for participants with mild-to-severe KOA resulted in safe, significant, sustained improvement of WOMAC-based knee pain, function, and stiffness scores compared to baseline status.

Project description:The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy (HDP) with conventional physiotherapy (CPT) in improving symptoms in females with knee osteoarthritis (OA). The present study included 60 patients with a diagnosis of knee OA. The patients were randomly assigned to the HDP (n=30) and CPT (n=30) groups. The patients in the HDP group were treated with a dextrose injection into the knee joint (25% dextrose) and around the knee (15% dextrose) in two sessions for 1 month, while those in the CPT group received a hot pack, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and therapeutic ultrasound in five sessions a week for 4 weeks. Prior to commencing the treatment, and at 1 and 3 months post-treatment, all the patients were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the goniometric measurement of active knee range of motion (ROM), a 50-m walking test and isokinetic knee muscle strength measurements. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups as regards the demographic characteristics at pre-treatment (P>0.05). However, at 1 and 3 months post-treatment, the scores of all the outcome parameters were significantly improved in the HDP group compared with the CPT group (P<0.05 for all). In both groups, a significant improvement was observed in the VAS scores, WOMAC total values and ROM following the treatments, with the greatest improvement observed in the HDP group (P<0.001). The isokinetic quadriceps peak torque measurements were increased in both groups following treatment. All the scores exhibited a statistically significant improvement in the HDP group at both 1 and 3 months post-treatment. On the whole, the results of the present study demonstrate that both HDP and CPT are effective treatment modalities to relieve pain, and increase functionality and strength in patients with knee OA. However, greater improvements in pain and functionality can be achieved with prolotherapy.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study compared 4 clinical tests with reference to magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopic visualization to comprehensively evaluate their diagnostic value for anterior cruciate ligament injuries.MethodsWe systematically searched 10 electronic databases from January 1, 2010, to May 1, 2021. Two reviewers collected data in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. The quality of each study was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. A meta-analysis was performed using Meta-Disc version 1.4 and Stata SE version 15.0.ResultsEighteen articles involving 2031 participants were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that for the Lachman test, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnosis odds ratio, area under the curve (AUC) of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC), and Q* were 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73-0.78), 0.89 (95% CI, 0.87-0.91), 5.65 (95% CI, 4.05-7.86), 0.28 (95% CI, 0.23-0.36), 22.95 (95% CI, 14.34-36.72), 0.88, and 0.81, respectively. For the anterior drawer test, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnosis odds ratio, AUC of SROC, and Q* were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.61-0.68), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.90), 3.57 (95% CI, 2.13-5.96), 0.44 (95% CI, 0.32-0.59), 8.77 (95% CI, 4.11-18.74), 0.85, and 0.78, respectively. For the pivot shift test, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnosis odds ratio, AUC of SROC, and Q* were 0.59 (95% CI, 0.56-0.62), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), 13.99 (95% CI, 9.96-19.64), 0.44 (95% CI, 0.35-0.55), 29.46 (95% CI, 15.60-55.67), 0.98, and 0.94, respectively. For the lever sign test, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnosis odds ratio, AUC of SROC, and Q* were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83), 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95), 9.56 (95% CI, 2.76-33.17), 0.23 (95% CI, 0.12-0.46), 47.38 (95% CI, 8.68-258.70), 0.94, and 0.87, respectively.ConclusionsExisting evidence shows that these clinical tests have high diagnostic efficacy for anterior cruciate ligament injuries, and that every test has its own advantages and disadvantages. However, the above results should be validated through additional studies, considering the limited quality and quantity of our sample.

Project description:The objective of this study was to determine whether prolotherapy, an injection-based complementary treatment for chronic musculoskeletal conditions, improves pain, stiffness, and function in adults with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (KOA) compared to baseline status.This was a prospective, uncontrolled study with 1-year follow-up.The study was conducted in an outpatient setting.Adults with at least 3 months of symptomatic KOA, recruited from clinical and community settings, participated in the study.Participants received extra-articular injections of 15% dextrose and intra-articular prolotherapy injections of 25% dextrose at 1, 5, and 9 weeks, with as-needed treatments at weeks 13 and 17.Primary outcome measure was the validated Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Secondary outcome measure was the validated Knee Pain Scale (KPS). Tertiary outcome measure was procedure-related pain severity and participant satisfaction.Thirty-six (36) participants (60 ± 8.7 years old, 21 female) with moderate-to-severe KOA received an average of 4.3 ± 0.7 prolotherapy injection sessions over a 17-week treatment period and reported progressively improved scores during the 52-week study on WOMAC and KPS measures. Participants reported overall WOMAC score improvement 4 weeks after the first injection session (7.6 ± 2.4 points, 17.2%), and continued to improve through the 52-week follow-up (15.9 ± 2.5 points, p<0.001, 36.1%). KPS scores improved in both injected (p<0.001) and uninjected knees (p<0.05). Prescribed low-dose opioid analgesia effectively treated procedure-related pain. Satisfaction was high and there were no adverse events. Female gender, age 46-65 years old, and body-mass index of 25 kg/m(2) or less were associated with greater improvement on the WOMAC instrument.In adults with moderate to severe KOA, dextrose prolotherapy may result in safe, significant, sustained improvement of knee pain, function, and stiffness scores. Randomized multidisciplinary effectiveness trials including evaluation of potential disease modification are warranted to further assess the effects of prolotherapy for KOA.

Dataset Information

Effects of dextrose prolotherapy on tendinopathy, fasciopathy, and ligament injuries, fact or myth?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Effects of dextrose prolotherapy on tendinopathy, fasciopathy, and ligament injuries, fact or myth?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets