Journals / Journal of Surgery and Medicine / 2020 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 12

An evaluation of treatment options for lateral epicondylitis

Lateral epikondilitte tedavi seçeneklerinin değerlendirilmesi

Pages
1182–1185
Publication Date
2020-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results: A significant improvement was observed in all three methods in the VAS and quality of life of the patients at one, three, and six months after treatment compared to pre-treatment values (P

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Lateral pain in the elbow is a widespread problem in orthopedics and physiotherapy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: The study included a total of 105 patients who were diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis between 2010 and 2016 and treated conservatively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results: A significant improvement was observed in all three methods in the VAS and quality of life of the patients at one, three, and six months after treatment compared to pre-treatment values (P
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Lateral dirsek ağrısı · Peppering · ESWT

Abstract

Aim: Lateral pain in the elbow is a widespread problem in orthopedics and physiotherapy. There are different conservative treatment options available, but there is no consensus on their superiority to each other. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of three different treatment methods applied to patients followed up with a diagnosis of lateral epicondylitis. Methods: The study included a total of 105 patients who were diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis between 2010 and 2016 and treated conservatively. The patients were separated into three groups according to the treatment administered. In Group 1 (n:28), 1 ml betamethasone dipropionate (Diprospan®, Schering-Plough Corp., Kenilworth, NJ, ABD) was applied with the peppering method. In Group 2 (n:28), the same peppering method was used to apply 1 ml local anesthetic (prilocaine hydrochloride, Citanest®, AstraZeneca plc., London, UK). In Group 3 (n:49), extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) treatment was performed. Data were evaluated before and at one, three, and six months after treatment. Clinical scores were evaluated according to the Quick Dash (Q-DASH, Quick disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand) scoring system and VAS (visual analog scale) scores during the daily activities of the patients. Quality of life and patient satisfaction levels were evaluated based on Quick Dash scores. Results: A significant improvement was observed in all three methods in the VAS and quality of life of the patients at one, three, and six months after treatment compared to pre-treatment values (P

Özet

Amaç: Dirsek yan ağrısı, ortopedi ve fizik tedavi pratiğinde sık karşılaşılan bir problemdir. Farklı konservatif tedavi seçenekleri mevcut olup, birbirlerine üstünlükleri konusunda fikir birliği yoktur. Bu çalışmada lateral epikondilit tanısıyla takip edilen hastalarda üç farklı tedavi yönteminin etkinliğini değerlendirilmek amaçlanmıştır. Yöntemler: 2010-2016 yılları arasında lateral epikondilit tanısıyla takip edilen ve konservatif olarak tedavi edilen 105 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastalar yapılan tedavi metoduna göre 3 gruba ayrıldı. Birinci gruptaki 28 hastaya 1 ml betametazon dipropiyonat (Diprospan®, Schering-Plough Corp., Kenilworth, NJ, ABD), ikinci gruptaki 28 hastaya sadece 1 ml lokal anestezik prilokain hidroklorür (Citanest®, AstraZeneca plc., Londra, Birleşik Krallık), aynı yöntemle 30-40 kez iğne ucu ciltten çıkarılmadan aynı bölgeye batırılıp çıkarılarak (peppering yöntemiyle) uygulandı. Üçüncü gruptaki 49 hastaya Ekstrakorporeal şok dalga terapisi (ESWT) tedavisi uygulandı. Tedavi öncesi ve 1. 3. ve 6. aydaki veriler değerlendirildi. Klinik skorlar Quick Dash (Q-DASH, Quick disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand) skorlama sistemine göre değerlendirilerek, hastaların günlük yaşam aktiviteleri sırasındaki VAS (Visual Analog Scale) skorlarına bakıldı. Yaşam kalitesi ve hasta memnuniyeti düzeyleri Quick Dash skorlarına göre değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Her üç yöntemde tedavi sonrası birinci ay, üçüncü ay ve altıncı aydaki VAS skorunda ve hastanın yaşam kalitesinde tedavi öncesine göre anlamlı olarak iyileşme gözlendi (P

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZCANYÜZ, B., OĞUR, H. U., SEYFETTİNOĞLU, F., BAYDAR, M., OZAN, F., MÜJDE, S. (2020). An evaluation of treatment options for lateral epicondylitis. Journal of Surgery and Medicine, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 12, 1182–1185. https://ajindex.com/articles/780157

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Bill Vicenzino & Anthony Wright () Lateral epicondylalgia I: epidemiology, pathophysiology, aetiology and natural history, Physical Therapy Reviews, 1996;1(1):23-34. doi: 10.1179/ptr.1996.1.1.23 2. Allander E. Prevalence, incidence, and remission rates of some common rheumatic diseases or syndromes. Scand J Rheumatol. 1974;3(3):145-53. doi: 10.3109/03009747409097141. PMID: 4428194. 3. Gündüz R, Malas FÜ, Borman P, Kocaoğlu S, Özçakar L. Physical therapy, corticosteroid injection, and extracorporeal shock wave treatment in lateral epicondylitis. Clinical and ultrasonographical comparison. Clin Rheumatol. 2012 May;31(5):807-12. doi: 10.1007/s10067-012-1939-y. Epub 2012 Jan 27. PMID: 22278162. 4. Kane SF, Lynch JH, Taylor JC. Evaluation of elbow pain in adults. Am Fam Physician. 2014 Apr 15;89(8):649-57. PMID: 24784124. 5. Kraushaar BS, Nirschl RP. Tendinosis of the elbow (tennis elbow). Clinical features and findings of histological, immunohistochemical, and electron microscopy studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 Feb;81(2):259-78. PMID: 10073590. 6. Hong QN, Durand MJ, Loisel P. Treatment of lateral epicondylitis: where is the evidence? Joint Bone Spine. 2004 Sep;71(5):369-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2003.05.002. PMID: 15474386. 7. Barrington J, Hage W. Lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow): nonoperative, open, or arthroscopic treatment?. Current Opinion in Orthopaedics. 2003;14:291–5. doi: 10.1097/00001433-200308000-00013. 8. Labelle H, Guibert R, Joncas J, Newman N, Fallaha M, Rivard CH. Lack of scientific evidence for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis of the elbow. An attempted meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992 Sep;74(5):646-51. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.74B5.1388172. PMID: 1388172. 9. Buchbinder R, Green SE, Struijs P. Tennis elbow. BMJ Clin Evid. 2008 May 28;2008:1117. PMID: 19450309; PMCID: PMC2907994. 10. Shergill R, Choudur HN. Ultrasound-Guided Interventions in Lateral Epicondylitis. J Clin Rheumatol. 2019 Apr;25(3):e27-e34. doi: 10.1097/RHU.0000000000000879. PMID: 30074911. 11. Khan KM, Cook JL, Taunton JE, Bonar F. Overuse tendinosis, not tendinitis part 1: a new paradigm for a difficult clinical problem. Phys Sportsmed. 2000 May;28(5):38-48. doi: 10.3810/psm.2000.05.890. PMID: 20086639. 12. Bisset L, Beller E, Jull G, Brooks P, Darnell R, Vicenzino B. Mobilisation with movement and exercise, corticosteroid injection, or wait and see for tennis elbow: randomised trial. BMJ. 2006 Nov 4;333(7575):939. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38961.584653.AE. Epub