Percutaneous Needle Tenotomy for the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Abstract

III.

Platelet‐Rich Plasma Vs Autologous Blood Vs Corticosteroid Injections in the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review, Pairwise and Network Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

“…Percutaneous tenotomy has been considered as one of the effective methods of release . However, it is limited in clinical practice due to the insufficient and low quality of supporting evidence . Because of this, most patients prefer to select nonoperative measures, such as activity modification, physical therapy, and injections .…”

Predictors of Outcome Following Tenotomy in Patients with Recalcitrant Epicondylopathy

“…Moreover, when combined, biological therapies and needle tenotomy may exhibit synergistic effects. 9 A recent systematic review 10 aiming to examine the efficacy of percutaneous tenotomy in elbow tendinopathies identified only six studies (four were retrospective and two prospective). Corticosteroid injections were used with tenotomy in three of the six studies.…”

Interventions for Treating Tennis Elbow: An Overview of Systematic Reviews in the Past Ten Years

“…The main characteristics of the included SRs were presented in table 2.Among the included studies, there were 15 in China and 22 in English, among which 2 in China were actually the same study.The one with the most complete description was chosen for evaluation.Twenty-nine of the studies included were randomized controlled trials, and 21 were assessed for bias using Cochrane's risk bias assessment tool.Seven was assessed using the Jadad scale, and three were assessed using the PEDro score.Ten literature was reviewed systematically, and 27 were meta-analyzed.Interventions, 12 articles used acupuncture, 4 using the shock wave therapy, 14 with non-surgical therapy, including platelet rich plasma, botulinum toxin injection, autologous blood injection, corticosteroid injections, etc.3 article adopting physical therapy, 4 by operation therapy.See Table 2 for full details. They all employed the PICO approach (population, intervention, control group, and outcome) as an organizing framework for establishing study questions.Most of the included studies adopted the elementary rule of PICO, including 5 non-random, cohort and case-control studies, and the rest were included in RCT.Only 1 article [54] provides protocol registration, and the rest do not provide protocol registration or publication before commencement of the review (AMSTAR2 Item 2).Two SRs [38,44] described the reasons for the type of included study, while none of the others described the reasons for the type of included study(AMSTAR2 Item 3).Only one review [48] had conducted a comprehensive literature search.One review [53] only retrieves one database, which is not inclusive enough(AMSTAR2 Item 4).In two reviews [41,44] authors had not performed study selection and data extraction in duplicate.None of the reviews provided a complete list of potential related studies and reasons for excluding each(AMSTAR2 Item 7).Thirty seven reviews partly provided characteristic information of their included studies.Three SRs [35,41,53] did not evaluate the risk of the included studies, while the rest of them evaluated the quality of the included literature with different scales.Three SRs [23,32,54] had reported funding sources for the included studies and whether there is a con ict of interest between the included studies, while the rest are not reported.Twelve reviews [22, 27-28, 29-30, 38-39, 41, 43, 45-47] applied meta-analytical methods appropriately, explaining factors for xed or random effects model selection and methods used for heterogeneity investigation.Eleven reviews [32,35,37,42,44,50,…”