MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpicondylitisVisual analogue scaleElbowTennis elbowCarpal tunnel syndromePromRandomized controlled trialMcGill Pain QuestionnaireTriamcinolone acetonide

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207