-
Cardiovascular and Interventional... Aug 2014Because the best possible treatment for venous malformations is unclear, this study systematically reviews the available literature regarding the effectiveness of... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Because the best possible treatment for venous malformations is unclear, this study systematically reviews the available literature regarding the effectiveness of different treatment options for the patient group. Venous malformations result from incorrect development of the veins during embryogenesis and are present at birth. Venous malformations may exhibit symptoms, such as pain, swelling, and inflammation of the vessel.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase was performed. Data regarding the design, participants, intervention and, treatment outcome (success and complications) were extracted. The validity of the studies was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies were identified studying the effectiveness of eight treatments: sclerotherapy/embolization with ethanol, gelified ethanol, bleomycin, polidocanol, sodium tetradecyl sulfate (STS), Ethibloc, surgery, and laser therapy. All of the included studies have a high or unclear risk of bias. The average biased reported success rates for ethanol, gelified ethanol, bleomycin, polidocanol, STS, Ethibloc, surgery, and laser therapy were 74, 89, 88, 90, 86, 65, 90, and 94 %, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Until more valid evidence is available, the choice for treatment remains a shared decision between the patient and a multidisciplinary treatment group. From a cost perspective, sclerotherapy with STS or polidocanol should be the treatment of choice.
Topics: Humans; Laser Therapy; Risk Factors; Sclerosing Solutions; Sclerotherapy; Vascular Malformations; Vascular Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 24196269
DOI: 10.1007/s00270-013-0764-2 -
The American Journal of Sports Medicine Jun 2013Injection therapy with glucocorticoids has been used since the 1950s as a treatment strategy for lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow). Lately, several novel injection... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Injection therapy with glucocorticoids has been used since the 1950s as a treatment strategy for lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow). Lately, several novel injection therapies have become available.
PURPOSE
To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of injection therapies in patients with lateral epicondylitis.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials comparing different injection therapies for lateral epicondylitis were included provided they contained data for change in pain intensity (primary outcome). Trials were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Network (random effects) meta-analysis was applied to combine direct and indirect evidence within and across trial data using the final end point reported in the trials, and results for the arm-based network analyses are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs).
RESULTS
Seventeen trials (1381 participants; 3 [18%] at low risk of bias) assessing injection with 8 different treatments-glucocorticoid (10 trials), botulinum toxin (4 trials), autologous blood (3 trials), platelet-rich plasma (2 trials), and polidocanol, glycosaminoglycan, prolotherapy, and hyaluronic acid (1 trial each)-were included. Pooled results (SMD [95% confidence interval]) showed that beyond 8 weeks, glucocorticoid injection was no more effective than placebo (-0.04 [-0.45 to 0.35]), but only 1 trial (which did not include a placebo arm) was at low risk of bias. Although botulinum toxin showed marginal benefit (-0.50 [-0.91 to -0.08]), it caused temporary paresis of finger extension, and all trials were at high risk of bias. Both autologous blood (-1.43 [-2.15 to -0.71]) and platelet-rich plasma (-1.13 [-1.77 to -0.49]) were also statistically superior to placebo, but only 1 trial was at low risk of bias. Prolotherapy (-2.71 [-4.60 to -0.82]) and hyaluronic acid (-5.58 [-6.35 to -4.82]) were both more efficacious than placebo, whereas polidocanol (0.39 [-0.42 to 1.20]) and glycosaminoglycan (-0.32 [-1.02 to 0.38]) showed no effect compared with placebo. The criteria for low risk of bias were only met by the prolotherapy and polidocanol trials.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found a paucity of evidence from unbiased trials on which to base treatment recommendations regarding injection therapies for lateral epicondylitis.
Topics: Blood Transfusion, Autologous; Botulinum Toxins; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Polidocanol; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sclerosing Solutions; Tennis Elbow; Viscosupplements
PubMed: 22972856
DOI: 10.1177/0363546512458237 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery. Venous and... Apr 2024We compared the effectiveness and safety of polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam ablation vs endovenous thermal ablation with radiofrequency or laser energy for treatment... (Review)
Review
Comparative effectiveness of non-compounded polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam (Varithena) ablation versus endovenous thermal ablation utilizing a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
We compared the effectiveness and safety of polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam ablation vs endovenous thermal ablation with radiofrequency or laser energy for treatment of venous insufficiency caused by lower extremity truncal vein incompetence via network meta-analysis of published comparative evidence.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature review following best practices, including a prospective protocol. We screened studies published in English from 2000 to 2023 for randomized and nonrandomized studies reporting direct or indirect comparisons between polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam and endovenous thermal ablation. Thirteen studies met our eligibility criteria for the network meta-analysis. The co-primary effectiveness outcomes were the closure rate ≥3 months after procedure and the average change in the Venous Clinical Severity Score. For the subgroup of venous ulcer patients, the ulcer healing rate was the primary effectiveness outcome. The secondary outcomes included safety and patient-reported outcomes. Network meta-analyses were conducted on outcomes having sufficient data. Categorical outcomes were summarized using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sensitivity tests and estimates of network inconsistency were used to investigate the robustness of our meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We found that polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam was not significantly different statistically from endovenous thermal ablation for venous closure (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.36-1.18; P = .16). Although not the primary aim of the study, the network meta-analysis also provided evidence to confirm our supposition that polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam was significantly differentiated statistically from physician-compounded foam, with higher odds for vein closure (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.58-5.37; P < .01). A sensitivity analysis using the longest available time point for closure in each study, with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up (median, 48 months; range, 12-72 months), showed results similar to those of the main analysis. No association was found between the risk of deep vein thrombosis and the treatment received. The available data were insufficient for a network meta-analysis of Venous Clinical Severity Score improvement and ulcer healing rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam was not significantly different statistically from endovenous thermal ablation for venous closure and deep vein thrombosis risk for chronic venous insufficiency treatment, based on a network meta-analysis of published evidence. Polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam was significantly differentiated statistically from physician-compounded foam, with higher odds of vein closure. A sensitivity analysis found venous closure findings were robust at follow-up intervals of 12 months or greater and for up to 6 years. New evidence meeting the inclusion criteria for this review will be incorporated at regular intervals into a living network meta-analysis.
PubMed: 38679141
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2024.101896 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Mar 2023The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to introduce the relatively novel method of ultrasound-guided local lauromacrogol injection (USG-LLI) followed by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of clinical safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided local lauromacrogol injection versus uterine artery embolization in the treatment of caesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to introduce the relatively novel method of ultrasound-guided local lauromacrogol injection (USG-LLI) followed by dilatation and curettage for caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) and to investigate the clinical safety and efficacy between uterine artery embolization (UAE) and USG-LLI in the treatment of CSP.
METHODS
The relevant literature and articles about USG-LLI, UAE and CSP published in eight electronic databases were searched to extract the primary outcomes for the selected articles. Review Manager Software(RevMan) V.5.2 was used for quantitative data synthesis and data analysis. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis were also performed on the included articles.
RESULTS
Of 10 studies included in our search, 623 patients were in the USG-LLI group and 627 patients were in the UAE groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of success rate, blood loss and time to human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) normalization. However, USG-LLI group patients than UAE group patients had a shorter duration of hospital stay (mean difference [MD] = -1.97; 95% confidence intervals [CI] -2.63 to -1.31; P < 0.05; I = 95%), shorter restored menses (MD = -4.84; 95%CI -5.78 to -3.90; P < 0.05; I = 95%), and lower complication rates [odds ratio(OR) = 0.21; 95%CI:0.15 to 0.30; P < 0.05]; and cheaper on expenses of hospitalization (MD = -8028.29; 95%CI -10,311.18 to -5745.40; P < 0.05; I = 100%).
CONCLUSIONS
The results demonstrate that USG-LLI is comparable in curative effect and success rates with UAE in the therapy of CSP, but patients in the USG-LLI group seem to have fewer complications rates, shorter duration of hospital stays and lower costs.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Polidocanol; Cicatrix; Uterine Artery Embolization; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Cesarean Section
PubMed: 36882695
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-023-05455-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Telangiectasias (spider veins) and reticular veins on the lower limbs are very common, increase with age, and have been found in 41% of women. The cause is unknown and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Telangiectasias (spider veins) and reticular veins on the lower limbs are very common, increase with age, and have been found in 41% of women. The cause is unknown and the patients may be asymptomatic or can report pain, burning or itching. Treatments include sclerotherapy, laser, intense pulsed light, microphlebectomy and thermoablation, but none is established as preferable.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of sclerotherapy, laser therapy, intensive pulsed light, thermocoagulation, and microphlebectomy treatments for telangiectasias and reticular veins.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 16 March 2021. We undertook additional searches in LILACS and IBECS databases, reference checking, and contacted specialists in the field, manufacturers and study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared treatment methods such as sclerotherapy, laser therapy, intensive pulsed light, thermocoagulation, and microphlebectomy for telangiectasias and reticular veins in the lower limb. We included studies that compared individual treatment methods against placebo, or that compared different sclerosing agents, foam or laser treatment, or that used a combination of treatment methods.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data, assessed risks of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The outcomes of interest were resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias, adverse events (including hyperpigmentation, matting), pain, recurrence, time to resolution, and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 3632 participants from 35 RCTs. Studies compared a variety of sclerosing agents, laser treatment and compression. No studies investigated intensive pulsed light, thermocoagulation or microphlebectomy. None of the included studies assessed recurrence or time to resolution. Overall the risk of bias of the included studies was moderate. We downgraded the certainty of evidence to moderate or low because of clinical heterogeneity and imprecision due to the wide confidence intervals (CIs) and few participants for each comparison. Any sclerosing agent versus placebo There was moderate-certainty evidence that sclerosing agents showed more resolution or improvement of telangiectasias compared to placebo (standard mean difference (SMD) 3.08, 95% CI 2.68 to 3.48; 4 studies, 613 participants/procedures), and more frequent adverse events: hyperpigmentation (risk ratio (RR) 11.88, 95% CI 4.54 to 31.09; 3 studies, 528 participants/procedures); matting (RR 4.06, 95% CI 1.28 to 12.84; 3 studies, 528 participants/procedures). There may be more pain experienced in the sclerosing-agents group compared to placebo (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.34; 1 study, 40 participants; low-certainty evidence). Polidocanol versus any sclerosing agent There was no clear difference in resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.14; 7 studies, 852 participants/procedures), hyperpigmentation (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.43; 6 studies, 819 participants/procedures), or matting (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27; 7 studies, 859 participants/procedures), but there were fewer cases of pain (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.08; 5 studies, 480 participants/procedures) in the polidocanol group. All moderate-certainty evidence. Sodium tetradecyl sulphate (STS) versus any sclerosing agent There was no clear difference in resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.11; 4 studies, 473 participants/procedures). There was more hyperpigmentation (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.64; 4 studies, 478 participants/procedures), matting (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.85; 2 studies, 323 participants/procedures) and probably more pain (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.25; 4 studies, 409 participants/procedures). All moderate-certainty evidence. Foam versus any sclerosing agent There was no clear difference in resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.34; 2 studies, 187 participants/procedures); hyperpigmentation (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 10.23; 2 studies, 187 participants/procedures) or pain (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.24; 1 study, 147 participants/procedures). There may be more matting using foam (RR 6.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 35.98; 2 studies, 187 participants/procedures). All low-certainty evidence. Laser versus any sclerosing agent There was no clear difference in resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.07; 5 studies, 593 participants/procedures), or matting (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.19; 2 studies, 162 participants/procedures), and maybe less hyperpigmentation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; 4 studies, 262 participants/procedures) in the laser group. All moderate-certainty evidence. High heterogeneity of the studies reporting on pain prevented pooling, and results were inconsistent (low-certainty evidence). Laser plus sclerotherapy (polidocanol) versus sclerotherapy (polidocanol) Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be more resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias in the combined group (SMD 5.68, 95% CI 5.14 to 6.23; 2 studies, 710 participants), and no clear difference in hyperpigmentation (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.99; 2 studies, 656 participants) or matting (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.28; 2 studies, 656 participants). There may be more pain in the combined group (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.55; 1 study, 596 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Small numbers of studies and participants in each comparison limited our confidence in the evidence. Sclerosing agents were more effective than placebo for resolution or improvement of telangiectasias but also caused more adverse events (moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in more pain (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a benefit in resolution or improvement for any sclerosant compared to another or to laser. There may be more resolution or improvement of telangiectasias in the combined laser and polidocanol group compared to polidocanol alone (low-certainty evidence). There may be differences between treatments in adverse events and pain. Compared to other sclerosing agents polidocanol probably causes less pain; STS resulted in more hyperpigmentation, matting and probably pain; foam may cause more matting (low-certainty evidence); laser treatment may result in less hyperpigmentation (moderate-certainty evidence). Further well-designed studies are required to provide evidence for other available treatments and important outcomes (such as recurrence, time to resolution and delayed adverse events); and to improve our confidence in the identified comparisons.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pruritus; Sclerotherapy; Telangiectasis; Veins
PubMed: 34637138
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012723.pub2 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2022The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of polidocanol against venous malformations (VMs).
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of polidocanol against venous malformations (VMs).
METHODS
Studies reporting the treatment of VMs using polidocanol (published until February 15, 2020) were reviewed in the Embase and PubMed databases. After excluding the same literature, part of the studies were excluded by reading the title, abstract, full text. Eleven studies (with 287 participants) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included. Systematic meta-analysis was performed using Reviews Manager 5.2, and a fixed-effects model was used to calculate the pooled effective rate of polidocanol against VMs and the 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
Lesion reduction of more than 50% was considered effective. A total of 287 patients were treated, and treatment in 271 was considered effective. The efficacy of polidocanol was 0.89 (95% CI = 0.83-0.93). Heterogeneity among the studies was small ( = 0%, = 0.47). T The funnel plot was roughly symmetric.
CONCLUSION
Our study suggested that polidocanol is effective in the treatment of VMs. VMs at different sites can be treated without serious complications. Therefore, we have reason to believe that polidocanol is a safe and an effective drug for VMs.
PubMed: 35967557
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.925318 -
Phlebology Apr 2013The objective of the study was to review the literature reporting visual disturbance (VD)following sclerotherapy for varicose veins. Underlying mechanisms will be... (Review)
Review
The objective of the study was to review the literature reporting visual disturbance (VD)following sclerotherapy for varicose veins. Underlying mechanisms will be discussed. A literature search of the databases Medline and Google Scholar was performed. Original articles including randomized trials, case series and case reports reporting VD in humans following sclerotherapy for varicose veins were included. Additional references were also obtained if they had been referenced in related publications. The search yielded 4948 results of which 25 reports were found to meet the inclusion criteria. In larger series with at least 500 included patients the prevalence of VD following sclerotherapy ranges from 0.09% to 2%. In most reports foam sclerotherapy was associated with VD (19); exclusive use of liquid sclerosant was reported in two cases, some reports included foam and liquid sclerosant (4). There were no persistent visual disorders reported. VD occurred with polidocanol and sodium tetradecyl sulphate in different concentrations (0.25–3%). Various forms of foam preparation including various ways of foam production and the liquid –air ratio (1 or 2 parts of liquid mixed with 3, 4 or 5 parts of air) were reported in association with the occurrence of VD. VDs following sclerotherapy for varicose veins are rare and all reported events were transient. Bubble embolism or any kind of embolism seems unlikely to be the only underlying mechanism. A systemic inflammatory response following sclerotherapy has been suggested. Further research to clarify the mechanism of action of sclerosants is required.
Topics: Embolism; Female; Humans; MEDLINE; Male; Polidocanol; Polyethylene Glycols; Sclerosing Solutions; Sclerotherapy; Sodium Tetradecyl Sulfate; Telangiectasis; Varicose Veins; Vision Disorders
PubMed: 23761921
DOI: 10.1258/phleb.2012.012051 -
Endocrinology and Metabolism (Seoul,... Feb 2021Ultrasound-guided minimally invasive procedures are widely used to treat thyroid diseases. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ethanol... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ultrasound-guided minimally invasive procedures are widely used to treat thyroid diseases. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ethanol ablation (EA) in comparison with other non-surgical options in the treatment of benign thyroid cystic nodules.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of studies on EA for thyroid cystic nodules, mainly in the Ovid-MEDLINE and Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. The standardized mean difference (SMD) of the volume reduction ratio (VRR) after EA versus other non-surgical treatments comprised the primary outcome, whereas the odds ratio (OR) of therapeutic success rates between the two groups comprised the secondary outcome.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included 19 studies (four randomized controlled trials and 15 non-randomized studies) with 1,514 participants. The cumulative VRR of EA was 83.908% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.358% to 88.457%). EA had a significantly higher pooled VRR (SMD, 0.381; 95% CI, 0.028 to 0.734; P=0.030), but not a significantly higher pooled therapeutic success rate (OR, 0.867; 95% CI, 0.132 to 5.689; P=0.880), than other forms of non-surgical management including radiofrequency ablation (RFA), polidocanol sclerotherapy, and simple aspiration with or without saline flush. However, the VRR and therapeutic success rate were not significantly different between EA and RFA. Major complications were recorded only in six patients (0.53%) with self-limiting dysphonia.
CONCLUSION
The role of EA as the first-line treatment for benign thyroid cysts and predominantly cystic nodules is supported by its high effectiveness and good safety profile compared to other currently available non-surgical options.
Topics: Cysts; Ethanol; Humans; Thyroid Nodule; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33677930
DOI: 10.3803/EnM.2020.833 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2011Sclerotherapy has been used in clinical practice for centuries, but there is still no consensus about which, if any, sclerosing agent provides the best results. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sclerotherapy has been used in clinical practice for centuries, but there is still no consensus about which, if any, sclerosing agent provides the best results.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of sclerosing agents in the treatment of telangiectasias of the lower limbs.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched 26 May 2011) and CENTRAL (2011, Issue 2). We searched references within identified studies and from the Cited References in the Web of Science. We contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials on the treatment of telangiectasias comparing sclerotherapy with a normal saline placebo, no treatment or an alternative sclerotherapy regimen.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Both authors determined which studies to include, extracted the data and rated risk of bias. One author (LS) contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies and analysed the results.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten studies involving 484 patients were included. There was no evidence suggesting superior efficacy of any one sclerosant over another, but there was evidence of superiority of sclerotherapy to placebo.The evidence did not suggest an increase in patient satisfaction with any one agent versus another, but there was evidence that patients were less satisfied with placebo.There was some evidence suggesting that polidocanol (POL) was more likely to cause adverse reactions at a concentration of 1% compared with lower concentrations or hypertonic saline, and that sodium tetradecyl sulfate (STS) was more likely to cause adverse reactions at a concentration of 1% compared with POL at 0.5%.There was some evidence suggesting that STS was more painful than POL, heparsal (20% saline mixed with heparin 100 units/mL) or placebo, and that POL was no more painful than placebo. Evidence from one study suggested that hypertonic saline (HS) was more painful than POL.The data were not suitable for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence did not suggest superior efficacy or patient satisfaction for any one sclerosing agent used in the treatment of telangiectasias of the lower limbs, but the agents studied showed superiority to a normal saline placebo. However, the amount of available evidence in this field is small and the overall methodological quality of the research was poor, as was the quality of reporting. More research is needed to determine the optimal agent(s) and the ideal dosing to achieve the best results and maximize patient satisfaction. Future research efforts should incorporate more demographic data and symptom measures to allow for comparison with findings from observational studies, thereby aiding assessment of how various risk groups respond to treatment.
Topics: Heparin; Humans; Leg; Patient Satisfaction; Polidocanol; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sclerosing Solutions; Sclerotherapy; Sodium Chloride; Sodium Tetradecyl Sulfate; Telangiectasis
PubMed: 22161437
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008826.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Achilles tendinopathy is a common condition, often with significant functional consequences. As a wide range of injection treatments are available, a review of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Achilles tendinopathy is a common condition, often with significant functional consequences. As a wide range of injection treatments are available, a review of randomised trials evaluating injection therapies to help inform treatment decisions is warranted.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of injection therapies for people with Achilles tendinopathy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 20 April 2015: the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus. We also searched trial registers (29 May 2014) and reference lists of articles to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating injection therapies in adults with an investigator-reported diagnosis of Achilles tendinopathy. We accepted comparison arms of placebo (sham) or no injection control, or other active treatment (such as physiotherapy, pharmaceuticals or surgery). Our primary outcomes were function, using measures such as the VISA-A (Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles questionnaire), and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We assessed treatment effects using mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for dichotomous variables. For follow-up data, we defined short-term as up to six weeks, medium-term as up to three months and longer-term as data beyond three months. We performed meta-analysis where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 studies (732 participants). Seven trials exclusively studied athletic populations. The mean ages of the participants in the individual trials ranged from 20 years to 50 years. Fifteen trials compared an injection therapy with a placebo injection or no injection control, four trials compared an injection therapy with active treatment, and one compared two different concentrations of the same injection. Thus no trials compared different injection therapies. Two studies had three trial arms and we included them twice in two different categories. Within these categories, we further subdivided injection therapies by mode of action (injury-causing versus direct repair agents).The risk of bias was unclear (due to poor reporting) or high in six trials published between 1987 and 1994. Improved methodology and reporting for the subsequent trials published between 2004 and 2013 meant that these were at less risk of bias.Given the very low quality evidence available from each of four small trials comparing different combinations of injection therapy versus active treatment and the single trial comparing two doses of one injection therapy, only the results of the first comparison (injection therapy versus control) are presented.There is low quality evidence of a lack of significant or clinically important differences in VISA-A scores (0 to 100: best function) between injection therapy and control groups at six weeks (MD 0.79, 95% CI -4.56 to 6.14; 200 participants, five trials), three months (MD -0.94, 95% CI -6.34 to 4.46; 189 participants, five trials) or between six and 12 months (MD 0.14, 95% CI -6.54 to 6.82; 132 participants, three trials). Very low quality evidence from 13 trials showed little difference between the two groups in adverse events (14/243 versus 12/206; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.89), most of which were minor and short-lasting. The only major adverse event in the injection therapy group was an Achilles tendon rupture, which happened in a trial testing corticosteroid injections. There was very low quality evidence in favour of the injection therapy group in short-term (under three months) pain (219 participants, seven trials) and in the return to sports (335 participants, seven trials). There was very low quality evidence indicating little difference between groups in patient satisfaction with treatment (152 participants, four trials). There was insufficient evidence to conclude on subgroup differences based on mode of action given that only two trials tested injury-causing agents and the clear heterogeneity of the other 13 trials, which tested seven different therapies that act directly on the repair pathway.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to draw conclusions on the use, or to support the routine use, of injection therapies for treating Achilles tendinopathy. This review has highlighted a need for definitive research in the area of injection therapies for Achilles tendinopathy, including in older non-athletic populations. This review has shown that there is a consensus in the literature that placebo-controlled trials are considered the most appropriate trial design.
Topics: Achilles Tendon; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Aprotinin; Athletes; Fibroblasts; Glycosaminoglycans; Hemodialysis Solutions; Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Middle Aged; Platelet Transfusion; Polidocanol; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium Chloride; Tendinopathy; Young Adult
PubMed: 26009861
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010960.pub2