Efficacy of neural prolotherapy versus local corticosteroid soft tissue injection for treatment of chronic anserine bursitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial

Background Anserine bursitis is characterized by the presence of spontaneous pain with tenderness at the inferomedial aspect of the knee joint. Neural prolotherapy aims to relieve pain of a variety of chronic musculoskeletal disorders. The study aim was to explore the short-term efficacy of neural prolotherapy (subcutaneous perineural injection of dextrose 5% solution) versus local corticosteroid injection for pain relief and improvement of function in patients with chronic anserine bursitis. The enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive neural prolotherapy (subcutaneous perineural injection of dextrose 5% solution) (neural prolotherapy group) or a single local soft tissue injection of corticosteroid (corticosteroid group). Outcome measures included Western Ontario McMasters Universities osteoarthritis index, assessment of overall anserine bursitis pain severity using the visual analogue scale, patient’s global assessment of anserine bursitis severity using the visual analogue scale, and clinical assessment for the presence of tenderness on the anserine bursa region. Patients were evaluated before injection and after intervention by 4 weeks. Results The study included 67 lower limbs from 43 patients with chronic anserine bursitis. No significant differences were found between both treatment groups regarding all assessed parameters at the start of the study. After 4 weeks, within-group analysis showed that there was a statistically significant improvement in Western Ontario McMasters Universities osteoarthritis index and its subscales (P ≤ 0.0001), overall anserine bursitis pain severity (P ≤ 0.0001), and patient’s global assessment of anserine bursitis severity (P ≤ 0.0001), as well as there was significant improvement regarding the presence of tenderness at the anserine bursa region in both groups in comparison to the preinjection assessment. At the postinjection assessment, between-group analysis showed that there were no significant differences regarding all assessed outcome parameters. All patients in both groups tolerated the injection procedure and were satisfied with the procedure. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding patients’ satisfaction to the procedure results. Improvement was achieved in 86.4% of patients included in the neural prolotherapy group versus 95.2% of patients included in the corticosteroid group. Conclusions Neural prolotherapy was effective in relieving pain, improving local tenderness and function in patients with chronic anserine bursitis similar to local corticosteroid injection. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number: NCT04509440. Registered 12 August 2020—Retrospectively registered,

Extracorporale shockwavetherapie bij een calcificatie van het mediale collaterale knieligament: een casus met literatuurnazicht

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy as a treatment for medial collateral knee ligament calcification: case presentation and overview of the literature Background Calcification of the medial collateral ligament is an uncommon cause of medial knee pain. In the few case reports that have been written, in multiple cases various conservative treatments have been assessed, often with an unsatisfactory result, leading to the excision of the toothpaste-like calcification. The conservative treatment consists of a short period of ice, analgesics or anti-inflammatory drugs, physiotherapy, a local corticosteroid injection or ultrasound-guided lavage. Case presentation A 40-year-old man with recurring medial knee pain since 2 years was diagnosed with medial collateral ligament calcification of the right knee. The pain was located near the medial epicondyle of the femur. The range of motion was maximal with painful knee flexion and moderate tenderness at the proximal medial collateral ligament. The pain started after a bicycle crash and the diagnosis was made by means of an MRI. Initially, the pain briefly improved after a local corticosteroid injection and physiotherapy, but reoccurred during running. The subsequent physical examination and ultrasound confirmed the diagnosis. The treatment consisted of a combination of physiotherapy and extracorporeal shock wave therapy, performed twice with an interval of 71 days. The follow-up after 5 months revealed that the patient had regained optimal knee function and was pain free at rest and during running. Conclusion Symptomatic medial collateral ligament calcification is a rarely diagnosed condition, mostly treated surgically without adequate conservative therapy. This case report suggests that conservative therapy consisting of physiotherapy and extracorporeal shock wave therapy can be successful in treating medial collateral ligament calcification.

Comparison Between Distal and Proximal Approaches for Local Corticosteroid Injection in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: The present, open-labeled study aimed to compare the distal approach (DA) for local corticosteroid injection (LCI) with the conventional proximal approach (PA) in alleviating the symptom and improving the electrodiagnostic parameters of the patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Methods: A total of 60 participants with nonsevere CTS were included in the present randomized controlled trial (RCT), of which 29 and 31 were assigned to the DA and PA groups, respectively. Each group received a single, landmark-guided injection of local methylprednisolone. The participants were assessed preintervention and 3 months later using the measures of visual analog scale (VAS), Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ), hand grip strength, and nerve conduction study (NCS). Results: Following a 3-month follow-up, both groups had significant improvements in VAS, both functional and severity subscales of BCTQ, hand grip strength, and some electrodiagnostic parameters (all P-values < .05). Moreover, the DA group had a significantly lower procedure duration than the PA group (9.80 ± 1.12 vs. 27.61 ± 1.77; P < .001). Conclusions: LCI using the DA should be considered a feasible, safe, and effective therapeutic method in patients with mild to moderate CTS. It had a shorter procedure duration than conventional PA, while their clinical and electrophysiological results were similar.

COMPARISON OF HYDRODISECTION INJECTION BETWEEN TRIAMCINOLONE ACETONIDE VERSUS DEXAMETHASONE IN CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common nontraumatic peripheral neuropathy, which is caused by suppression of the median nerve below the transverse carpi ligament. Local corticosteroid injection is considered the fastest and most effective method for improving symptoms that occur in CTS. There are several corticosteroid agents that can be used, but there are no objective standards that can explain the most ideal drugs. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of hydrodisection injection therapy of triamcinolone acetonide versus dexamethasone on carpal tunnel syndrome. Methods: This study involved 30 participants who were diagnosed with CTS and fulfilled the inclusion criteria and no exclusion criteria were obtained. Participants were divided into two treatment groups; the first group (n = 15) injected with Triamcinolone Acetonide (TCA) 10mg / 1ml and lidocaine 1% 1 ml and the second group (n = 15) injected with Dexamethasone 4mg / 0.8ml and lidocaine 1% 1 ml. The NRS, FSS, and SSS parameters were assessed before injection and 4 weeks after injection in each agent. Then compared these parameters at 4 weeks after injection compared to the TCA group with the dexamethasone group. Results: NRS score before and 4 weeks after TCA injection (sig 0.000; p <0.05), SSS (sig 0.001; p <0.05) and FSS (sig 0.020; p <0.05), and NRS score before and 4 weeks after dexamethasone injection (sig 0.001; p <0.05), SSS (sig 0,000; p <0.05) and FSS (sig 0,000; p <0.05). At 4 weeks after injection of TCA compared to dexamethasone there were no significant results on NRS (sig 0.237; p> 0.05) and FSS (sig 0.119; p> 0.05), while SSS values were significantly different (sig 0.027; p <0.05). Conclusion: Significant improvement in NRS, FSS and SSS score was obtained at 4 weeks after hydrodisection injection, both with TCA and dexamethasone. At 4 weeks after TCA injection compared to dexamethasone, there were no significant differences in NRS and FSS scores, whereas SSS score differed significantly. Both injection agents are equally effective in treating CTS, but dexamethasone produces a better improvement in SSS score.

Ultrasound-guided local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided (US-guided) versus landmark-guided (LM-guided) local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Methods: Database including Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The outcomes mainly included Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ): Symptom Severity Scale (BCTQs), Functional Status Scale (BCTQf); and electrophysiological indexes: distal motor latency (DML), sensory distal latency (SDL), compound muscle action potential (CAMP), sensory nerve action potential amplitude (SNAP), and sensory nerve conduction velocity (SNCV). Adverse events were also recorded. Results: Overall, nine RCTs were finally screened out with 469 patients (596 injected hands). Pooled analysis showed that US-guided injection was more effective in BCTQs (SMD, −0.69; 95% CI, −1.08 to −0.31; P = 0.0005), BCTQf (SMD, −0.23; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.07; P = 0.005), CAMP (MD, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.35−0.94; P < 0.0001) improvement, and a lower rate of adverse events (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22−0.52; P < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis revealed that the US-guided injection had significantly better CMAP than the LM-guided for the in-plane approach (MD, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.36−1.01; P < 0.0001) but not for the out-plane approach (MD, 0.39; 95% CI, −0.39 to 1.17; P = 0.33). Conclusions: US-guided injection was superior to LM-guided injection in symptom severity, functional status, electrodiagnostic, and adverse events improvement for CTS. To some extent, the in-plane approach yields better results compared with the out-plane process under US guidance.