-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Varicose veins are enlarged and tortuous veins, affecting up to one-third of the world's population. They can be a cause of chronic venous insufficiency, which is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Varicose veins are enlarged and tortuous veins, affecting up to one-third of the world's population. They can be a cause of chronic venous insufficiency, which is characterised by oedema, pigmentation, eczema, lipodermatosclerosis, atrophie blanche, and healed or active venous ulcers. Injection sclerotherapy (liquid or foam) is widely used for treatment of varicose veins aiming to transform the varicose veins into a fibrous cord. However, there is limited evidence regarding its effectiveness and safety, especially in patients with more severe disease. This is the second update of the review first published in 2002.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of injection sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicose veins.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, and LILACS databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries, on 20 July 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including cluster-randomised trials and first phase cross-over studies) that used injection sclerotherapy for the treatment of varicose veins.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed, selected and extracted data. Disagreements were cross-checked by a third review author. We used Cochrane's Risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias. The outcomes of interest were cosmetic appearance, complications, residual varicose veins, quality of life (QoL), persistence of symptoms, and recurrent varicose veins. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the worst-case-scenario for dichotomous data imputation for intention-to-treat analyses. For continuous outcomes, we used the 'last-observation-carried-forward' for data imputation if there was balanced loss to follow-up. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 new RCTs for this update, bringing the total to 28 studies involving 4278 participants. The studies differed in their design, and in which sclerotherapy method, agent or concentration was used. None of the included RCTs compared sclerotherapy to no intervention or to any pharmacological therapy. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded for risk of bias, low number of studies providing information for each outcome, low number of participants, clinical differences between the study participants, and wide CIs. Sclerotherapy versus placebo Foam sclerotherapy may improve cosmetic appearance as measured by IPR-V (independent photography review - visible varicose veins scores) compared to placebo (polidocanol 1%: mean difference (MD) -0.76, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.60; 2 studies, 223 participants; very low-certainty evidence); however, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) rates may be slightly increased in this intervention group (RR 5.10, 95% CI 1.30 to 20.01; 3 studies, 302 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Residual varicose vein rates may be decreased following polidocanol 1% compared to placebo (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.29; 2 studies, 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Following polidocanol 1% use, there may be a possible improvement in QoL as assessed using the VEINES-QOL/Sym questionnaire (MD 12.41, 95% CI 9.56 to 15.26; 3 studies, 299 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and possible improvement in varicose vein symptoms as assessed using the Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) (MD -3.25, 95% CI -3.90 to -2.60; 2 studies, 223 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrent varicose veins were not reported for this comparison. Foam sclerotherapy versus foam sclerotherapy with different concentrations Three individual RCTs reported no evidence of a difference in cosmetic appearance after comparing different concentrations of the intervention; data could not be pooled for two of the three studies (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.47; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there was no clear difference in rates of thromboembolic complications when comparing one foam concentration with another (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.41 to 5.33; 3 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three RCTs investigating higher concentrations of polidocanol foam indicated the rate of residual varicose veins may be slightly decreased in the polidocanol 3% foam group compared to 1% (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.04; 3 studies, 371 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear improvement in QoL was detected. Two RCTs reported improved VCSS scores with increasing concentrations of foam. Persistence of symptoms were not reported for this comparison. There was no clear difference in recurrent varicose vein rates (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.32; 1 study, 148 participants; low-certainty evidence). Foam sclerotherapy versus liquid sclerotherapy One RCT reported on cosmetic appearance with no evidence of a difference between foam or liquid sclerotherapy (patient satisfaction scale MD 0.2, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.67; 1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the RCTs investigated thromboembolic complications, QoL or persistence of symptoms. Six studies individually showed there may be a benefit to polidocanol 3% foam over liquid sclerotherapy in reducing residual varicose vein rate; pooling data from two studies showed a RR of 0.51, with 95% CI 0.41 to 0.65; 203 participants; very low-certainty evidence. One study reported no clear difference in recurrent varicose vein rates when comparing sodium tetradecyl sulphate (STS) foam or liquid (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.42; 1 study, 286 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sclerotherapy versus sclerotherapy with different substances Four RCTs compared sclerotherapy versus sclerotherapy with any other substance. We were unable to combine the data due to heterogeneity or assess the certainty of the evidence due to insufficient data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a very low to low-certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, sclerotherapy is an effective and safe treatment for varicose veins concerning cosmetic appearance, residual varicose veins, QoL, and persistence of symptoms. Rates of DVT may be slightly increased and there were no data concerning recurrent varicose veins. There was limited or no evidence for one concentration of foam compared to another; foam compared to liquid sclerotherapy; foam compared to any other substance; or one technique compared to another. There is a need for high-quality trials using standardised sclerosant doses, with clearly defined core outcome sets, and measurement time points to increase the certainty of the evidence.
Topics: Humans; Sclerotherapy; Varicose Ulcer; Varicose Veins; Veins; Venous Insufficiency
PubMed: 34883526
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001732.pub3 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Jan 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sclerotherapy methods for hemorrhoidal disease (HD) over the past 40 years. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sclerotherapy methods for hemorrhoidal disease (HD) over the past 40 years.
METHODS
The review followed the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted, including studies reporting the use of sclerotherapy in patients with HD. Study eligibility criteria were defined, and data were extracted independently by the authors. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to assess outcomes of interest.
RESULTS
Out of 1965 records identified, 44 studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 9729 patients. The majority of studies were conducted in Japan, followed by the UK, Italy, and Portugal. The median age of participants was 52 years, and the majority were male. The Goligher grade distribution indicated varying degrees of HD severity. Sclerotherapy was predominantly administered through anoscopy, with polidocanol being the most commonly used agent. The procedure was generally performed without pre-injection analgesia. The meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) revealed that sclerotherapy was not inferior to control interventions in terms of success rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.71-1.41) and recurrence rate (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.69-1.77), while resulting in fewer complications (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.92).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review highlights the safety and efficacy of sclerotherapy for HD, which yields similar success rates and fewer complications compared to other conservative or surgical approaches. Further research is warranted to optimize sclerotherapy techniques and evaluate long-term outcomes.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023396910.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Sclerotherapy; Hemorrhoids; Italy; Odds Ratio; Polidocanol
PubMed: 38261136
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-023-02908-w -
Journal of the European Academy of... Feb 2023Skin hyperpigmentation after sclerotherapy with polidocanol-containing sclerosants is a common local side effect. Sclerotherapists should be familiar with factors that... (Review)
Review
Skin hyperpigmentation after sclerotherapy with polidocanol-containing sclerosants is a common local side effect. Sclerotherapists should be familiar with factors that trigger hyperpigmentation after sclerotherapy with polidocanol-containing sclerosants. A systematic literature review of works reporting hyperpigmentation after sclerotherapy for telangiectasias, reticular veins, side branches and truncal varices with polidocanol-containing sclerosants was performed. Reported incidence rates, follow-up periods and potentially triggering factors were assessed and analysed. The search yielded 1687 results; of these, 27 reports met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of hyperpigmentation seemed to increase with higher concentrations of polidocanol and was more evident after sclerotherapy for epifascial veins than for intrafascial truncal veins when the polidocanol concentration was more than 0.25%. Regarding sclerotherapy for telangiectasias and reticular veins, the incidence of hyperpigmentation ranged between 2% and 25% for polidocanol 0.25% (liquid and foam), between 12.5% and 67.9% for polidocanol 0.5% (liquid and foam) and between 13% and 73% for polidocanol 1% (liquid and foam). Regarding truncal veins, the incidence ranged from 7% to 45.8% for polidocanol 1% (liquid and foam), from 16% to 17% for polidocanol 2% (foam) and from 7.4% to 32.5% for polidocanol 3% (liquid and foam). Regarding the treatment of side branches, the incidence of hyperpigmentation ranged from 5.6% to 53% for both foam and liquid sclerotherapy. Regarding the duration of hyperpigmentation, there are few data describing reticular veins and telangiectasias. Hyperpigmentation persisting for more than 6 months has been reported to have an incidence of up to 7.5%. Hyperpigmentation persisting for more than 1 year after foam polidocanol 1%-3% treatment for truncal veins has an incidence ranging from 8.1% to 17.5%. Other factors such as higher volumes and compression therapy after treatment seem to have a minor influence. Data regarding hyperpigmentation after polidocanol-related sclerotherapy are poor and should be improved by higher-quality research.
Topics: Humans; Polidocanol; Sclerotherapy; Sclerosing Solutions; Varicose Veins; Polyethylene Glycols; Telangiectasis; Hyperpigmentation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36196455
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.18639 -
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 -
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 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Jul 2009To appraise existing evidence for prolotherapy, polidocanol, autologous whole blood and platelet-rich plasma injection therapies for lateral epicondylosis (LE). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To appraise existing evidence for prolotherapy, polidocanol, autologous whole blood and platelet-rich plasma injection therapies for lateral epicondylosis (LE).
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine.
SEARCH STRATEGY
names and descriptors of the therapies and LE.
STUDY SELECTION
All human studies assessing the four therapies for LE.
MAIN RESULTS
Results of five prospective case series and four controlled trials (three prolotherapy, two polidocanol, three autologous whole blood and one platelet-rich plasma) suggest each of the four therapies is effective for LE. In follow-up periods ranging from 9 to 108 weeks, studies reported sustained, statistically significant (p<0.05) improvement in visual analogue scale primary outcome pain score measures and disease-specific questionnaires; relative effect sizes ranged from 51% to 94%; Cohen's d ranged from 0.68 to 6.68. Secondary outcomes also improved, including biomechanical elbow function assessment (polidocanol and prolotherapy), presence of abnormalities and increased vascularity on ultrasound (autologous whole blood and polidocanol). Subjects reported satisfaction with therapies on single-item assessments. All studies were limited by small sample size.
CONCLUSIONS
There is strong pilot-level evidence supporting the use of prolotherapy, polidocanol, autologous whole blood and platelet-rich plasma injections in the treatment of LE. Rigorous studies of sufficient sample size, assessing these injection therapies using validated clinical, radiological and biomechanical measures, and tissue injury/healing-responsive biomarkers, are needed to determine long-term effectiveness and safety, and whether these techniques can play a definitive role in the management of LE and other tendinopathies.
Topics: Blood Transfusion, Autologous; Humans; Injections; Naturopathy; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Polidocanol; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sclerosing Solutions; Tennis Elbow
PubMed: 19028733
DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2008.052761 -
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Jun 2022The optimal treatment of aneurysmal bone cysts (ABC) remains controversial. Surgery has long been considered as the treatment that yields the best outcomes. Some authors... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The optimal treatment of aneurysmal bone cysts (ABC) remains controversial. Surgery has long been considered as the treatment that yields the best outcomes. Some authors now prefer using less invasive options as the primary treatment. The primary objective of this systematic literature review was to determine if treatments that are less invasive than surgery are also effective in curing the ABC. The secondary objective was to determine the respective role of each treatment in the therapeutic arsenal.
HYPOTHESIS
Less invasive treatments can replace surgery as the base treatment for ABC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A PubMed® search was carried out for this review. The inclusion criteria were ABC treatment without cyst removal, case series, clinical case reports, reviews, publication in French or English. Excluded were articles that described the results of surgical treatment only, cranial or maxillofacial cysts, secondary ABC, duplicates, no abstract available. Based on the first six items of the "MINOR criteria", we selected 42 studies. For each selected study, we analyzed the number of cases, clinical response to treatment, radiological healing, recurrence or failure rate, complications and side effects of the treatment.
RESULTS
This review found that less invasive treatments generate results that are at least as good as surgery, often with fewer complications. Thus, in certain cases, these treatments can be recommended as first-line therapy. This category includes selective arterial embolization, sclerotherapy (alcohol, polidocanol) and injection of demineralized bone matrix.
DISCUSSION
Selective arterial embolization yields good results. While this is a difficult, operator-dependent technique that is not suitable for all ABCs (no identifiable feeding vessel), we recommend it as the primary treatment for spinal ABCs. For ABCs in other locations, sclerotherapy can be used as the primary treatment. However, this treatment becomes inconvenient if the number of injections is too high. Radiation therapy is not a first-line treatment because of its side effects. Bisphosphonates and denosumab can be used when the other treatments are contraindicated.
Topics: Bone Cysts, Aneurysmal; Embolization, Therapeutic; Humans; Radiography; Sclerotherapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35331923
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103272 -
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 -
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