Struijs P A A, Kerkhoffs G M M J, Assendelft W J J, Van Dijk C N
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Am J Sports Med. 2004 Mar;32(2):462-9. doi: 10.1177/0095399703258714.
The authors evaluated the effectiveness of brace-only treatment, physical therapy, and the combination of these for patients with tennis elbow.
Patients were randomized over 3 groups: brace-only treatment, physical therapy, and the combination of these. Main outcome measures were success rate, severity of complaints, pain, disability, and satisfaction. Data were analyzed using both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. Follow-up was 1 year.
A total of 180 patients were randomized. Physical therapy was superior to brace only at 6 weeks for pain, disability, and satisfaction. Contrarily, brace-only treatment was superior on ability of daily activities. Combination treatment was superior to brace on severity of complaints, disability, and satisfaction. At 26 weeks and 52 weeks, no significant differences were identified.
Conflicting results were found. Brace treatment might be useful as initial therapy. Combination therapy has no additional advantage compared to physical therapy but is superior to brace only for the short term.
作者评估了单纯支具治疗、物理治疗以及两者联合治疗对网球肘患者的有效性。
患者被随机分为3组:单纯支具治疗组、物理治疗组和联合治疗组。主要结局指标为成功率、主诉严重程度、疼痛、功能障碍和满意度。采用意向性分析和符合方案分析两种方法对数据进行分析。随访时间为1年。
共有180例患者被随机分组。在6周时,物理治疗在疼痛、功能障碍和满意度方面优于单纯支具治疗。相反,单纯支具治疗在日常活动能力方面更具优势。联合治疗在主诉严重程度、功能障碍和满意度方面优于支具治疗。在26周和52周时,未发现显著差异。
研究结果存在矛盾。支具治疗可能作为初始治疗有效。联合治疗与物理治疗相比没有额外优势,但在短期内优于单纯支具治疗。