局部皮质类固醇注射与干针治疗外侧上髁炎(LE)的对比研究

Dr. Aiman Ahmad Wani, Dr. Syed Sheikh Mohd Faizan, Dr. Raashid Manzoor Wani, Dr. Shahan Malik
{"title":"局部皮质类固醇注射与干针治疗外侧上髁炎(LE)的对比研究","authors":"Dr. Aiman Ahmad Wani, Dr. Syed Sheikh Mohd Faizan, Dr. Raashid Manzoor Wani, Dr. Shahan Malik","doi":"10.22271/ortho.2024.v10.i1b.3506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is an inflammation or micro-tearing of the tendons that join the forearm muscles on the lateral aspect of the elbow. The first line treatment for LE is topical and oral anti-inflammatory drugs from ice applications and brace used. If the first line treatment fails second line treatment generally invasive are offered and second-line therapeutic regimens include saline, corticosteroid or platelet-rich plasma injections. Dry needling is relatively new for treating the same. We hypothesized that dry needling would be as effective as second-line treatment for LE. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of second-line treatment local steroids and dry needling. Methods: In this study a total of 42 patients, clinically diagnosed with LE utilizing provocative tests and point tenderness at the insertion of the ECRB at the lateral epicondyle to compare the outcomes of second-line treatment local steroids and dry needling. Results: In group A (DN group), the mean PRTEE score before the start of therapy, at the 4 th week and 8-weeks follow-up was 68.96±6.89, 44.13±5.23 and 37.18±5.81 respectively. In group B (corticosteroid group), the mean PRTEE score before the injection, at the 4 th week and 8-weeks follow-up was 65.23±4.82, 51.08±6.32 and 43.72±4.12 respectively. Conclusion: Both the techniques have proven good results at defined intervals at regular follow ups. But as the PRTEE score we found both the treatment are equally effective. But due to less complications we preferred dry injection over local steroids. More Comparative studies should be conducted to compare dry needling with other treatment modalities.","PeriodicalId":14302,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences","volume":"8 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A study of local corticosteroid injection versus dry needling in Lateral Epicondylitis (LE)\",\"authors\":\"Dr. Aiman Ahmad Wani, Dr. Syed Sheikh Mohd Faizan, Dr. Raashid Manzoor Wani, Dr. Shahan Malik\",\"doi\":\"10.22271/ortho.2024.v10.i1b.3506\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is an inflammation or micro-tearing of the tendons that join the forearm muscles on the lateral aspect of the elbow. The first line treatment for LE is topical and oral anti-inflammatory drugs from ice applications and brace used. If the first line treatment fails second line treatment generally invasive are offered and second-line therapeutic regimens include saline, corticosteroid or platelet-rich plasma injections. Dry needling is relatively new for treating the same. We hypothesized that dry needling would be as effective as second-line treatment for LE. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of second-line treatment local steroids and dry needling. Methods: In this study a total of 42 patients, clinically diagnosed with LE utilizing provocative tests and point tenderness at the insertion of the ECRB at the lateral epicondyle to compare the outcomes of second-line treatment local steroids and dry needling. Results: In group A (DN group), the mean PRTEE score before the start of therapy, at the 4 th week and 8-weeks follow-up was 68.96±6.89, 44.13±5.23 and 37.18±5.81 respectively. In group B (corticosteroid group), the mean PRTEE score before the injection, at the 4 th week and 8-weeks follow-up was 65.23±4.82, 51.08±6.32 and 43.72±4.12 respectively. Conclusion: Both the techniques have proven good results at defined intervals at regular follow ups. But as the PRTEE score we found both the treatment are equally effective. But due to less complications we preferred dry injection over local steroids. More Comparative studies should be conducted to compare dry needling with other treatment modalities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14302,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences\",\"volume\":\"8 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22271/ortho.2024.v10.i1b.3506\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22271/ortho.2024.v10.i1b.3506","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:外上髁炎(LE)是指肘关节外侧连接前臂肌肉的肌腱发生炎症或微小撕裂。外上髁炎的一线治疗方法是外用和口服消炎药,以及使用冰敷和支架。如果一线治疗失败,一般会采用侵入性二线治疗,二线治疗方案包括注射生理盐水、皮质类固醇或富血小板血浆。干针疗法是一种相对较新的治疗方法。我们假设干针疗法与 LE 的二线疗法一样有效。本研究旨在比较局部类固醇和干针疗法的二线治疗效果。方法:干针疗法在这项研究中,共有 42 名临床诊断为前列腺痛的患者接受了激惹试验,并在外侧上髁的 ECRB 插入处出现点状触痛,以比较局部类固醇和干针疗法的二线治疗效果。结果显示在 A 组(DN 组)中,治疗开始前、第 4 周和 8 周随访时的平均 PRTEE 评分分别为(68.96±6.89)分、(44.13±5.23)分和(37.18±5.81)分。在 B 组(皮质类固醇组),注射前、第 4 周和 8 周随访时的平均 PRTEE 评分分别为(65.23±4.82)分、(51.08±6.32)分和(43.72±4.12)分。结论这两种技术在定期随访的规定时间间隔内都取得了良好的效果。但根据 PRTEE 评分,我们发现两种治疗方法都同样有效。但由于并发症较少,我们更倾向于干注射而非局部类固醇。应开展更多比较研究,将干针疗法与其他治疗方法进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A study of local corticosteroid injection versus dry needling in Lateral Epicondylitis (LE)
Introduction: Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is an inflammation or micro-tearing of the tendons that join the forearm muscles on the lateral aspect of the elbow. The first line treatment for LE is topical and oral anti-inflammatory drugs from ice applications and brace used. If the first line treatment fails second line treatment generally invasive are offered and second-line therapeutic regimens include saline, corticosteroid or platelet-rich plasma injections. Dry needling is relatively new for treating the same. We hypothesized that dry needling would be as effective as second-line treatment for LE. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of second-line treatment local steroids and dry needling. Methods: In this study a total of 42 patients, clinically diagnosed with LE utilizing provocative tests and point tenderness at the insertion of the ECRB at the lateral epicondyle to compare the outcomes of second-line treatment local steroids and dry needling. Results: In group A (DN group), the mean PRTEE score before the start of therapy, at the 4 th week and 8-weeks follow-up was 68.96±6.89, 44.13±5.23 and 37.18±5.81 respectively. In group B (corticosteroid group), the mean PRTEE score before the injection, at the 4 th week and 8-weeks follow-up was 65.23±4.82, 51.08±6.32 and 43.72±4.12 respectively. Conclusion: Both the techniques have proven good results at defined intervals at regular follow ups. But as the PRTEE score we found both the treatment are equally effective. But due to less complications we preferred dry injection over local steroids. More Comparative studies should be conducted to compare dry needling with other treatment modalities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信