Autologous US-guided PRP injection versus US-guided focal extracorporeal shock wave therapy for chronic lateral epicondylitis: A minimum of 2-year follow-up retrospective comparative study

Autologous US-guided PRP injection versus US-guided focal extracorporeal shock wave therapy for chronic lateral epicondylitis: A minimum of 2-year follow-up retrospective comparative study

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of two independent groups of patients treated with ultrasound (US)-guided extracorporeal shock wave (ESW) therapy and with US-guided injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for chronic lateral epicondylitis (LE) with a minimum of 2-year follow-up.

Results: Both US-guided autologous PRP injection and US-guided focal ESW administration proved effective in chronic LE with significant improvement in the QuickDASH, VAS, RM and PRTEE scores (p < 0.0001). No adverse effects or complications were recorded in any groups. No differences were found in recurrence rate and final results of the QuickDASH, VAS, RM and PRTEE scores between the two groups (p > 0.05). The mean time between treatment and symptom resolution was significantly shorter for the PRP treatment (p = 0.0212); furthermore, the mean time to return to the normal activities was quicker for PRP group (p = 0.0119).

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of two independent groups of patients treated with ultrasound (US)-guided extracorporeal shock wave (ESW) therapy and with US-guided injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for chronic lateral epicondylitis (LE) with a minimum of 2-year follow-up.

Results: Both US-guided autologous PRP injection and US-guided focal ESW administration proved effective in chronic LE with significant improvement in the QuickDASH, VAS, RM and PRTEE scores (p < 0.0001). No adverse effects or complications were recorded in any groups. No differences were found in recurrence rate and final results of the QuickDASH, VAS, RM and PRTEE scores between the two groups (p > 0.05). The mean time between treatment and symptom resolution was significantly shorter for the PRP treatment (p = 0.0212); furthermore, the mean time to return to the normal activities was quicker for PRP group (p = 0.0119).

Read More
Schedule a Consultation

For all appointments & inquiries