MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7083458420 · doi:10.1177/2325967125s00169

Poster 58: Decreased Pain After Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection in Lateral Epicondylitis Patients in the Early Follow-up Period

2025· article· en· W7083458420 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEpicondylitisVisual analogue scaleElbowTennis elbowCarpal tunnel syndromePromRandomized controlled trialMcGill Pain QuestionnaireTriamcinolone acetonide

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Objectives: Lateral epicondylitis is the most common condition affecting the elbow however conservative treatment for the condition remains controversial. Various approaches have been described including braces, physical therapy, corticosteroid injections, and platelet-rich-plasma (PRP) injections. PRP is taken from a centrifuged blood sample and consists mainly of platelets and growth factors. Although research surrounding injections in lateral epicondylitis continues to evolve, randomized controlled trials have shown that PRP injections are associated with decreased pain at two-year follow-up. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores and other patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) have been used previously; however, no studies to date have used the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE). It was hypothesized that patients would report improvements in pain and function at four weeks and four months after PRP injection. The primary outcomes were SANE and VAS pain scores. The secondary aim was to determine a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) value for SANE for this procedure. Methods: This was a retrospective review of a prospectively collected PROM database from 2021-2023. All patients who received a PRP injection for lateral epicondylitis were included in this study. Patients were excluded if they were missing baseline SANE or VAS pain scores, received an injection anywhere besides the common extensor tendon origin, or had overlapping conditions such as cervical radiculopathy, cubital tunnel or carpal tunnel syndrome. Baseline patient characteristics including sex, age, smoking history, history of depression or anxiety, disease chronicity, and hand dominance were collected. Previous history of physical therapy, corticosteroid injection, PRP injection, and procedure characteristics including milliliters (ml) of PRP injected and number of fenestrations were also collected. All PRP injections were ultrasound guided and conducted using the health-system standardized protocol with leukocyte-rich plasma. Primary outcomes included SANE and VAS pain scores at baseline, four weeks, and four months post-injection. MCID was calculated using the distribution-based method, calculated as half of the standard deviation of the change in SANE score. Additional outcomes included if the patient experienced any adverse events following injection, underwent subsequent injection within the study period. Results: A total of 36 patients met criteria for analysis. More than half the patients were male (n=20, 55.6%), and the average age was 50.15±9.31 years. Only 5.6% of patients were current smokers (n=2). Fifteen patients (41.7%) had histories of depression, and 10 patients (27.8%) had histories of anxiety. Most patients received an injection after experiencing symptoms for 10.62±9.56 months on average. The majority of patients previously tried or were concurrently going to physical therapy (n=28, 77.8%). Fourteen patients (38.9%) had received a previous corticosteroid injection, and five patients (13.9%) had received a previous PRP injection. The injection procedure typically consisted of 2.36±0.66 ml of PRP with 5.74±3.03 fenestrations. Most injections were done in the dominant arm (n=28, 77.8%). A total of six patients went on to have a repeat injection (16.7%). There were five patients who experienced increased post-procedure pain (13.9%) and one who experienced nerve irritation (2.8%). All adverse events eventually resolved. SANE scores at baseline, four-week, and four-month follow-up were 53.06±23.28, 57.22±27.32, 65.19±27.07. The difference between baseline and follow-up at four weeks was not statistically significant (p=0.245), but the follow-up scores at four months were found to be statistically higher than baseline scores (p=0.044). The average changes from baseline to four weeks and baseline to four months were 7.04±30.77 and 15.50±28.13, respectively. VAS pain scores at baseline, four-week, and four-month follow-up were 5.14±2.10, 4.25±2.66, 3.17±2.81. Follow-up scores at four weeks and four months were found to be statistically lower than baseline scores (p=0.006, p=0.003). The average changes from baseline to four weeks and baseline to four months were -1.29±2.29 and -2.44±2.99, respectively. A history of prior corticosteroid injection was not significantly associated with changes in SANE scores at four weeks or four months after PRP injection (p=0.149, p=0.602, respectively). The SANE MCID values at four weeks and four months were 15.39 and 14.07, respectively. Of those patients who reported, 44.4% met the four-week value and 37.5% met the four-month value. Conclusions: Patients after PRP injection for lateral epicondylitis demonstrated increased SANE scores at four months and decreased VAS pain scores at four weeks and four months. The change in SANE scores at four weeks was not statistically significant. These results may indicate that there are greater pain reducing effects as well as milder extremity functionality improvement effects associated with PRP injection. This may be in part due to the inherent nature of the disease with the more prevalent symptom being pain over loss of function. PRP injections are a safe and effective conservative treatment method for reducing pain symptoms and increasing functionality in patients with lateral epicondylitis. Physicians should discuss patient expectations for improvement during the early post-injection period.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,015

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,006
Tête enseignante GPT0,209
Écart entre enseignants0,203 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineMême sujetGeochemistry and Geologic MappingTravaux en français237 207