Iliotibial band syndrome

Pegrum, James; Self, Alex; Hall, Nick

doi:10.1136/bmj.l980

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Iliotibial band syndrome is the second most common running injury and the most common cause of lateral knee pain in runners. 19 It is also associated with cycling, and less frequently with field sports, hockey, rowing, swimming, hiking and basketball. It is a syndrome related to friction and is not a tendinopathy.…”

Section: Iliotibial Band Syndromementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Overuse injuries in the athlete

Fallon

2020

Aust J Gen Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Iliotibial Band Syndromementioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is a syndrome related to friction and is not a tendinopathy. 19 The iliotibial band is a long dense fibrous structure that is a lateral thickening of the fascia lata in the thigh. It also receives most of the tendon of gluteus maximus.…”

Section: Iliotibial Band Syndromementioning

confidence: 99%

Overuse injuries in the athlete

Fallon

2020

Aust J Gen Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…ITBS can cause chronic lateral knee pain that limits a patient's daily activity and participation in sports. 8 The management of ITBS most commonly begins with a course of conservative therapy, with surgical options reserved for cases unresponsive to conservative measures. Commonly used nonoperative treatment options for ITBS include physical therapy with an emphasis on iliotibial band stretching and strengthening of the hip abductors, local injection therapy to reduce inflammation and pain, and/or oral anti-inflammatory medications.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Commonly used nonoperative treatment options for ITBS include physical therapy with an emphasis on iliotibial band stretching and strengthening of the hip abductors, local injection therapy to reduce inflammation and pain, and/or oral anti-inflammatory medications. 8,11 Previous systematic reviews have examined the clinical outcomes following the management of ITBS in runners, and they found a lack of evidence to support the clinical efficacy of the reported treatments. 4,12 No previous systematic review has examined the effectiveness of the available ITBS therapies, regardless of patient activity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 1 , 2 , 3 The pathogenesis of ITBS is multifactorial, and various pathophysiologic abnormalities have been associated with this overuse injury, including repetitive rubbing of the distal iliotibial band against the lateral femoral epicondyle during knee flexion–extension; iliotibial band impingement at 30° of knee flexion; hip abductor weakness that results in iliotibial band overtightening during knee flexion–extension motion; inflammation of the lateral synovial recess or the sub-iliotibial band bursa of the lateral knee; periosteal inflammation of the lateral epicondyle; and others. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Operative Versus Nonoperative Management of Distal Iliotibial Band Syndrome—Where Do We Stand? A Systematic Review

Bolia¹,

Gammons

Scholten

et al. 2020

Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To systematically review the operative versus nonoperative methods for management of iliotibial band syndrome (ITBS) with comparison of the respective clinical outcomes. Methods: By adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines, 3 databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science) searched from inception to October 2019 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies on humans that reported the outcomes following operative or nonoperative management of ITBS. Excluded were case reports, case series with <5 participants, review articles, non-English articles, and nonepeer-reviewed articles. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs were used for quality control. Results: There were 15 eligible studies (9 for operative,6 for nonoperative treatment) examining 179 athletes (mean age 27.3 years, range: 17-53) who received conservative therapy for ITBS and 200 athletes (mean age 30.1 years, range: 14-63) who underwent surgical treatment. Most athletes were runners (65%). The mean follow-up time was significantly longer in studies reporting the outcomes following operative compared with nonoperative ITBS treatment (33.5 vs 2 months, respectively, P < .05). Significant variability in the methods used to assess the clinical outcomes precluded meta-analysis. The most commonly reported (7/9 studies, 77.7%) variable for postoperative evaluation in athletes was the return to sport rate (range: 81%-100%). Significant reduction in pain was consistently (6/6 studies,100%) found among the studies reporting the results of conservative ITBS treatment. The included RCTs were of good (1/5, 20%), fair (2/5, 40%), or poor (2/5, 40%) quality, whereas the average MINORS score was 7.4 (range: 3-13) for observational studies. The level of evidence ranged from Level II (6/15 studies) to IV (9/15 studies). Conclusions: Based on the current literature and at a maximum follow-up time of 6 months, conservative therapy can effectively reduce ITBS symptoms in athletes. Multiple surgical options exist for athletes who do not respond to nonoperative measures, with a reported return to sport rate between 81% and 100%. Level of Evidence: Systematic review of Level II and IV studies

show abstract