Everhart Joshua S, Cole Devon, Sojka John H, Higgins John D, Magnussen Robert A, Schmitt Laura C, Flanigan David C
Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.; College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
Arthroscopy. 2017 Apr;33(4):861-872. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.11.007. Epub 2017 Jan 16.
To compare the efficacy of common invasive and noninvasive patellar tendinopathy (PT) treatment strategies.
A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL, UptoDate, Cochrane Reviews, and SPORTDiscus. Fifteen studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) therapeutic outcome trial for PT, and (2) Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment was used to assess symptom severity at follow-up. Methodological quality and reporting bias were evaluated with a modified Coleman score and Begg's and Egger's tests of bias, respectively.
A total of 15 studies were included. Reporting quality was high (mean Coleman score 86.0, standard deviation 9.7), and there was no systematic evidence of reporting bias. Increased duration of symptoms resulted in poorer outcomes regardless of treatment (0.9% decrease in improvement per additional month of symptoms; P = .004). Eccentric training with or without core stabilization or stretching improved symptoms (61% improvement in the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment score, 95% confidence interval [CI] 53% to 69%). Surgery in patients refractory to nonoperative treatment also improved symptoms (57%, 95% CI 52% to 62%) with similar outcomes among arthroscopic and open approaches. Results from shockwave (54%, 95% CI 22% to 87%) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) studies (55%, 95% CI 5% to 105%) varied widely though PRP may accelerate early recovery. Finally, steroid injection provided no benefit (20%, 95% CI -20% to 60%).
Initial treatment of PT can consist of eccentric squat-based therapy, shockwave, or PRP as monotherapy or an adjunct to accelerate recovery. Surgery or shockwave can be considered for patients who fail to improve after 6 months of conservative treatment. Corticosteroid therapy should not be used in the treatment of PT.
Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.
比较常见的有创和无创髌腱病(PT)治疗策略的疗效。
在PubMed、谷歌学术、CINAHL、UpToDate、Cochrane综述和SPORTDiscus中进行系统检索。15项研究符合以下纳入标准:(1)PT的治疗结果试验,(2)采用维多利亚运动评估研究所来评估随访时的症状严重程度。分别用改良的科尔曼评分以及Begg检验和Egger检验评估方法学质量和报告偏倚。
共纳入15项研究。报告质量较高(平均科尔曼评分为86.0,标准差为9.7),且没有报告偏倚的系统证据。无论采用何种治疗方法,症状持续时间延长都会导致预后较差(症状每增加一个月,改善程度下降0.9%;P = 0.004)。进行或不进行核心稳定或拉伸的离心训练可改善症状(维多利亚运动评估研究所评分提高61%,95%置信区间[CI]为53%至69%)。非手术治疗无效的患者进行手术也可改善症状(57%,95%CI为52%至62%),关节镜手术和开放手术的疗效相似。冲击波治疗(54%,95%CI为22%至87%)和富血小板血浆(PRP)治疗(55%,95%CI为5%至105%)的结果差异很大,不过PRP可能会加速早期恢复。最后,类固醇注射没有益处(20%,95%CI为-20%至60%)。
PT的初始治疗可采用以离心蹲为主的治疗、冲击波或PRP作为单一疗法或辅助疗法以加速恢复。对于保守治疗6个月后仍未改善的患者,可考虑手术或冲击波治疗。皮质类固醇疗法不应应用于PT的治疗。
IV级,对II-IV级研究的系统评价。