The effectiveness of intratissue percutaneous electrolysis for the treatment of tendinopathy: a systematic review.

Q3 Health Professions
D Augustyn, A Paez
{"title":"The effectiveness of intratissue percutaneous electrolysis for the treatment of tendinopathy: a systematic review.","authors":"D Augustyn,&nbsp;A Paez","doi":"10.17159/2078-516X/2022/v34i1a12754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tendinopathy is highly prevalent in the general public and common in athletes. It makes up nearly 50% of all sport injuries. A number of treatment techniques with varying evidence of effectiveness are currently available. Intratissue percutaneous electrolysis (EPI) is one such modality, however little consensus exists for EPI's efficacy or the most effective treatment parameters.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To review and appraise available evidence for Intratissue Percutaneous Electrolysis (EPI) in the treatment of tendinopathy, examining the effectiveness of EPI in conjunction with other modalities and identifying the strengths and limitations of the evidence base for EPI in order to make evidence-based recommendation for future studies of EPI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase and Scopus were searched with keywords related to EPI and tendinopathy. Grey literature searches were conducted with Embase, OpenGrey, and ProQuest. Extensive citation searching was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), uncontrolled and observational studies of the application of EPI in patients aged 18-65 years with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) or clinical Ultrasonography (US) confirmed diagnosis of tendinopathy were eligible.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies met inclusion criteria: six randomised control trials (RCTs) and five uncontrolled studies. Clinical trials of EPI as an adjunct modality with physical therapy reporting greater decreased pain and return to function than treatment with physical therapy alone. The evidence for EPI is limited and influenced by small sample sizes, varying treatment protocols, clinical heterogeneity and high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It is currently not possible to conclude that EPI is an effective modality for the treatment of tendinopathy. RCTs with clearly described EPI treatment protocols, larger sample sizes and intervention reporting sufficient to support reproducibility are needed to determine the effectiveness of EPI for the treatment of tendinopathy.</p>","PeriodicalId":31065,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"34 1","pages":"v34i1a12754"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9924571/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/2078-516X/2022/v34i1a12754","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Tendinopathy is highly prevalent in the general public and common in athletes. It makes up nearly 50% of all sport injuries. A number of treatment techniques with varying evidence of effectiveness are currently available. Intratissue percutaneous electrolysis (EPI) is one such modality, however little consensus exists for EPI's efficacy or the most effective treatment parameters.

Objective: To review and appraise available evidence for Intratissue Percutaneous Electrolysis (EPI) in the treatment of tendinopathy, examining the effectiveness of EPI in conjunction with other modalities and identifying the strengths and limitations of the evidence base for EPI in order to make evidence-based recommendation for future studies of EPI.

Methods: PubMed, Embase and Scopus were searched with keywords related to EPI and tendinopathy. Grey literature searches were conducted with Embase, OpenGrey, and ProQuest. Extensive citation searching was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), uncontrolled and observational studies of the application of EPI in patients aged 18-65 years with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) or clinical Ultrasonography (US) confirmed diagnosis of tendinopathy were eligible.

Results: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria: six randomised control trials (RCTs) and five uncontrolled studies. Clinical trials of EPI as an adjunct modality with physical therapy reporting greater decreased pain and return to function than treatment with physical therapy alone. The evidence for EPI is limited and influenced by small sample sizes, varying treatment protocols, clinical heterogeneity and high risk of bias.

Conclusion: It is currently not possible to conclude that EPI is an effective modality for the treatment of tendinopathy. RCTs with clearly described EPI treatment protocols, larger sample sizes and intervention reporting sufficient to support reproducibility are needed to determine the effectiveness of EPI for the treatment of tendinopathy.

Abstract Image

组织内经皮电解治疗肌腱病变的有效性:一项系统综述。
背景:肌腱病变在普通大众和运动员中非常普遍。它占所有运动损伤的近50%。目前可用的一些治疗技术具有不同的有效性证据。组织内经皮电解(EPI)就是这样一种治疗方式,但对于EPI的疗效或最有效的治疗参数,目前还没有达成共识。目的:回顾和评估组织内经皮电解(EPI)治疗肌腱病变的现有证据,检查EPI与其他模式的有效性,并确定EPI证据基础的优势和局限性,以便为EPI的未来研究提供循证建议。方法:检索EPI和肌腱病变相关关键词PubMed、Embase和Scopus。使用Embase、OpenGrey和ProQuest进行灰色文献检索。进行了广泛的引文检索。随机对照试验(rct)、非对照研究和观察性研究均符合入选条件,这些研究在18-65岁经磁共振成像(MRI)或临床超声检查(US)确诊为肌腱病变的患者中应用EPI。结果:11项研究符合纳入标准:6项随机对照试验(rct)和5项非对照研究。EPI作为物理治疗的辅助方式的临床试验报告比单独物理治疗更能减轻疼痛和恢复功能。EPI的证据有限,受样本量小、治疗方案不同、临床异质性和高偏倚风险的影响。结论:目前还不能得出EPI是治疗肌腱病变的有效方式的结论。为了确定EPI治疗肌腱病变的有效性,需要有明确描述EPI治疗方案、更大样本量和足以支持可重复性的干预报告的随机对照试验。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信