-
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Mar 2016Sclerotherapy has become the gold standard for the first-line therapy of most venous (VMs) and lymphatic malformations (LMs) of the head and neck. Numerous sclerosing... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sclerotherapy has become the gold standard for the first-line therapy of most venous (VMs) and lymphatic malformations (LMs) of the head and neck. Numerous sclerosing agents are used to treat these low-flow vascular malformations; however, to date, it remains unclear which sclerosing agent is superior in terms of effectiveness and safety.
METHODS
In a systematic review of the literature (1995-present), we compare the effectiveness and complications of the sclerosing agents most commonly used for cervicocraniofacial VMs and LMs.
RESULTS
The literature search yielded 1155 articles, among which 36 (1552 patients) were included in the systematic review. The quality of evidence was low. Pingyangmycin, absolute ethanol, OK-432, ethanolamine oleate, bleomycin, polidocanol, doxycycline, and sodium tetradecyl sulfate (STS) were the most reported sclerosing agents. All agents seem effective, and the mean overall response varies from 71% to 100%. Complications occurred more frequently after ethanol sclerotherapy (18%), compared to other sclerosing agents (0-6%). Cellulitis and ulceration were encountered following sclerotherapy with most sclerosing agents, but skin necrosis was particularly observed after ethanol. Facial nerve paralysis occurred only after OK-432 (0.05%) and ethanol sclerotherapy (6%).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review could not identify a significantly superior sclerosing agent in terms of effectiveness, due to the low quality of the available evidence. Until stronger evidence is available, the difference in complication rates is potentially the deciding factor in the choice between sclerosing agents. As a significantly higher complication rate and more severe local complications were encountered after using absolute ethanol, we cannot recommend this agent for sclerotherapy of cervicofacial vascular malformations.
Topics: Esthetics; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Head; Humans; Male; Neck; Risk Assessment; Sclerosing Solutions; Sclerotherapy; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Malformations
PubMed: 26723834
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.10.045 -
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 -
British Medical Bulletin Mar 2015Several pharmacological interventions have been proposed for the management of Achilles tendinopathy, with no agreement on which is the overall best option available.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Several pharmacological interventions have been proposed for the management of Achilles tendinopathy, with no agreement on which is the overall best option available. This systematic review investigates the efficacy and safety of different local pharmacological treatments for Achilles tendinopathy.
SOURCES OF DATA
We included only randomized controlled studies (RCTs) focusing on clinical and functional outcomes of therapies consisting in injection of a substance or local application. Assessment of the methodological quality was performed using a modified version of the Coleman methodology score (CMS) to determine possible risks of bias.
AREAS OF AGREEMENT
Thirteen RCTs were included with a total of 528 studied patients. Eleven studies reported the outcomes of injection therapies. Two studies examined the outcomes of patients who applied glyceryl trinitrate patch. The mean modified CMS was 70.6 out of 90.
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
There was no significant evidence of remarkable benefits provided by any of the therapies studied.
GROWING POINTS
There is not univocal evidence to advise any particular pharmacological treatment as the best advisable non-operative option for Achilles tendinopathy as equivalent alternative to the most commonly used eccentric loading rehabilitation program. However, potential was shown by the combination of different substances administered with physical therapy.
RESEARCH
There is a need for more long-term investigations, studying large enough cohort with standardized scores and evaluations shared by all the investigations to confirm the healing potential, and provide a stronger statistical comparison of the available treatments.
Topics: Achilles Tendon; Blood Transfusion, Autologous; Humans; Pain; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Polidocanol; Polyethylene Glycols; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sclerosing Solutions; Tendinopathy; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom; Wound Healing
PubMed: 25583629
DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldu040 -
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