-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are commonly used to treat lateral elbow pain (also known as tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are commonly used to treat lateral elbow pain (also known as tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis or epicondylalgia). Based on animal models and observational studies, these injections may modulate tendon injury healing, but randomised controlled trials have reported inconsistent results regarding benefit for people with lateral elbow pain.
OBJECTIVES
To review current evidence on the benefit and safety of autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection for treatment of people with lateral elbow pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for published trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal for ongoing trials, on 18 September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing autologous whole blood or PRP injection therapy to another therapy (placebo or active treatment, including non-pharmacological therapies, and comparison between PRP and autologous blood) for lateral elbow pain. The primary comparison was PRP versus placebo. Major outcomes were pain relief (≥ 30% or ≥ 50%), mean pain, mean function, treatment success, quality of life, withdrawal due to adverse events, and adverse events; the primary time point was three months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 studies with 2337 participants; 56% of participants were female, mean age varied between 36 and 53 years, and mean duration of symptoms ranged from 1 to 22 months. Seven trials had three intervention arms. Ten trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to placebo injection (primary comparison). Fifteen trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to glucocorticoid injection. Four studies compared autologous blood to PRP. Two trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection plus tennis elbow strap and exercise versus tennis elbow strap and exercise alone. Two trials compared PRP injection to surgery, and one trial compared PRP injection and dry needling to dry needling alone. Other comparisons include autologous blood versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy; PRP versus arthroscopic surgery; PRP versus laser; and autologous blood versus polidocanol. Most studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection biases, mainly due to inadequate allocation concealment and lack of participant blinding. We found moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) to show that autologous blood or PRP injection probably does not provide clinically significant improvement in pain or function compared with placebo injection at three months. Further, low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggests that PRP may not increase risk for adverse events. We are uncertain whether autologous blood or PRP injection improves treatment success (downgraded for bias, imprecision, and indirectness) or withdrawals due to adverse events (downgraded for bias and twice for imprecision). No studies measured health-related quality of life, and no studies reported pain relief (> 30% or 50%) at three months. At three months, mean pain was 3.7 points (0 to 10; 0 is best) with placebo and 0.16 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 better to 0.29 worse; 8 studies, 523 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute improvement of 1.6% better (6% better to 3% worse). At three months, mean function was 27.5 points (0 to 100; 0 is best) with placebo and 1.86 points better (95% CI 4.9 better to 1.25 worse; 8 studies, 502 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute benefit of 1.9% (5% better to 1% worse), and treatment success was 121 out of 185 (65%) with placebo versus 125 out of 187 (67%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 4 studies, 372 participants), for absolute improvement of 0% (11.1% lower to 12.4% higher). Regarding harm, we found very low-certainty evidence to suggest that we are uncertain whether withdrawal rates due to adverse events differed. Low-certainty evidence suggests that autologous blood or PRP injection may not increase adverse events compared with placebo injection. Withdrawal due to adverse events occurred in 3 out of 39 (8%) participants treated with placebo versus 1 out of 41 (2%) treated with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.92; 1 study), for an absolute difference of 5.2% fewer (7.5% fewer to 14.8% more). Adverse event rates were 35 out of 208 (17%) with placebo versus 41 out of 217 (19%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.72; 5 studies; 425 participants), for an absolute difference of 2.4% more (4% fewer to 12% more). At six and twelve months, no clinically important benefit for mean pain or function was observed with autologous blood or PRP injection compared with placebo injection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Data in this review do not support the use of autologous blood or PRP injection for treatment of lateral elbow pain. These injections probably provide little or no clinically important benefit for pain or function (moderate-certainty evidence), and it is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence) whether they improve treatment success and pain relief > 50%, or increase withdrawal due to adverse events. Although risk for harm may not be increased compared with placebo injection (low-certainty evidence), injection therapies cause pain and carry a small risk of infection. With no evidence of benefit, the costs and risks are not justified.
Topics: Arthroscopy; Elbow; Female; Humans; Infant; Pain Measurement; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Shoulder Pain
PubMed: 34590307
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010951.pub2 -
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 -
Bone & Joint Open Feb 2021Aneurysmal bone cysts (ABCs) are locally aggressive lesions typically found in the long bones of children and adolescents. A variety of management strategies have been...
AIMS
Aneurysmal bone cysts (ABCs) are locally aggressive lesions typically found in the long bones of children and adolescents. A variety of management strategies have been reported to be effective in the treatment of these lesions. The purpose of this review was to assess the effectiveness of current strategies for the management of primary ABCs of the long bones.
METHODS
A systematic review of the published literature was performed to identify all articles relating to the management of primary ABCs. Studies required a minimum 12-month follow-up and case series reporting on under ten participants were not included.
RESULTS
A total of 28 articles meeting the eligibility criteria were included in this review, and all but one were retrospective in design. Due to heterogeneity in study design, treatment, and outcome reporting, data synthesis and group comparison was not possible. The most common treatment option reported on was surgical curettage with or without a form of adjuvant therapy, followed by injection-based therapies. Of the 594 patients treated with curettage across 17 studies, 86 (14.4%) failed to heal or experienced a recurrence. Similar outcomes were reported for 57 (14.70%) of the 387 patients treated with injection therapy across 12 studies. Only one study directly compared curettage with injection therapy (polidocanol), randomizing 94 patients into both treatment groups. This study was at risk of bias and provided low-quality evidence of a lack of difference between the two interventions, reporting success rates of 93.3% and 84.8% for injection and surgical treatment groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION
While both surgery and sclerotherapy are widely implemented for treatment of ABCs, there is currently no good quality evidence to support the use of one option over the other. There is a need for prospective multicentre randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions for the treatment of ABCs. Cite this article: 2021;2(2):125-133.
PubMed: 33622046
DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.22.BJO-2020-0168 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jun 2020Cyanoacrylate alone or in combination with other interventions, can be used to achieve variable rates of success in preventing rebleeding. Our study aims to assess the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cyanoacrylate alone or in combination with other interventions, can be used to achieve variable rates of success in preventing rebleeding. Our study aims to assess the pooled risk of gastric and esophageal varices rebleeding after an initial treatment with cyanoacrylate alone and/or in combination with other treatments, by a systematic review of the literature and pooled analysis.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane library were searched for studies that reported the risk of rebleeding during the follow-up period after treatment of gastric or esophageal varices with either cyanoacrylate alone or in combination with other treatments. Standard error, upper and lower confidence intervals at 95% confidence interval for the risk were obtained using STATA Version 15 which was also used to generate forest plots for pooled analysis. The random or fixed effect model was applied depending on the heterogeneity (I).
RESULTS
A total of 39 studies were found to report treatment of either gastric or esophageal varices with either cyanoacrylate alone or in combination with other treatments. When gastric varices are treated with cyanoacrylate alone, the risk of rebleeding during the follow-up period is 0.15(Confidence Interval: 0.11-0.18). When combined with lipiodol; polidocanol or sclerotherapy the rebleeding risks are 0.13 (CI:0.03-0.22), 0.10(CI:0.02-0.19), and 0.10(CI:0.05-0.18), respectively. When combined with percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization; percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization; endoscopic ultrasound guided coils; or with ethanolamine, the rebleeding risk are 0.10(CI:0.03-0.17), 0.10(CI:0.03-0.17), 0.07(CI:0.03-0.11) and 0.08(CI:0.02-0.14), respectively. When esophageal varices are treated with cyanoacrylate alone, the risk of rebleeding is 0.29(CI:0.11-0.47). When combined with percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization; sclerotherapy; or band ligation, the risks of rebleeding are 0.16(CI:0.10-0.22), 0.12(CI:0.04-0.20) and 0.10(CI:0.04-0.24), respectively. When combined with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt; or ethanolamine, the risks of rebleeding are 0.06(CI: - 0.01-0.12) and 0.02 (CI: - 0.02-0.05), respectively.
CONCLUSION
In treating both gastric and esophageal varices, cyanoacrylate produces better results in terms of lower risk of rebleeding when combined with other treatments than when used alone. The combination of cyanoacrylate with ethanolamine or with endoscopic ultrasound guided coils produces the lowest risk of rebleeding in esophageal and gastric varices, respectively. We call upon randomized trials to test these hypotheses.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Chemoprevention; Cyanoacrylates; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Female; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32517718
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-020-01333-9