Prolotherapy: An effective therapy for Tietze syndrome

Prolotherapy: An effective therapy for Tietze syndrome

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the short-term effect of prolotherapy and conservative terapy for the Tietze synrome.

Patients And Methods: From 2013 to 2014, twenty-one patients underwent prolotherapy (group 1) and thirteen underwent conservative therapy with analgesics (group 2). A visual analogue score (VAS) was recorded for measurement of pain intensity in all patients before (Pre VAS) and after injection first day (VAS1), first week (VAS2) and fourth week (VAS3). Group 2 were received systemic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. VAS score was recorded similarly at the same times (Pre VAS, VAS1, VAS2, VAS3), and clinical affects were compared between the two groups.

Results: The mean VAS score (mm) before prolotherapy was 7.10 in patients who received prolotherapy, and 7.14 mm in patients who treated nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. The mean VAS after the fist injection was 2.19 mm and dropped to 1.52 mm after the third injection. The mean VAS after the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug treatment dropped 2.62 mm and during the same scores to 3 weeks later. There was no significant difference between the group 1 and group 2 in the age, sex and comorbidity. Also there was no significant difference between the group 1 and group 2 in clinical and radiological evidence. The prolotherapy group showed a faster recovery, including significantly reduced clinic findings (p: 0.001). Third VAS is significant finding for the prolotherapy group.

Conclusion: Prolotherapy could be performed safely and is a method with a favorable long term treatments for t he Tietze Syndrome. It may be the ideal procedure for patients with drugs side effects and advers events especially for those with limited liver and kidney reserve or significant comorbidities.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the short-term effect of prolotherapy and conservative terapy for the Tietze synrome.

Patients And Methods: From 2013 to 2014, twenty-one patients underwent prolotherapy (group 1) and thirteen underwent conservative therapy with analgesics (group 2). A visual analogue score (VAS) was recorded for measurement of pain intensity in all patients before (Pre VAS) and after injection first day (VAS1), first week (VAS2) and fourth week (VAS3). Group 2 were received systemic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. VAS score was recorded similarly at the same times (Pre VAS, VAS1, VAS2, VAS3), and clinical affects were compared between the two groups.

Results: The mean VAS score (mm) before prolotherapy was 7.10 in patients who received prolotherapy, and 7.14 mm in patients who treated nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. The mean VAS after the fist injection was 2.19 mm and dropped to 1.52 mm after the third injection. The mean VAS after the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug treatment dropped 2.62 mm and during the same scores to 3 weeks later. There was no significant difference between the group 1 and group 2 in the age, sex and comorbidity. Also there was no significant difference between the group 1 and group 2 in clinical and radiological evidence. The prolotherapy group showed a faster recovery, including significantly reduced clinic findings (p: 0.001). Third VAS is significant finding for the prolotherapy group.

Conclusion: Prolotherapy could be performed safely and is a method with a favorable long term treatments for t he Tietze Syndrome. It may be the ideal procedure for patients with drugs side effects and advers events especially for those with limited liver and kidney reserve or significant comorbidities.

Read More
Schedule a Consultation

For all appointments & inquiries