Sarkar Richik, Thampi Gils, Js Nagakumar
Orthopaedics, Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research, Kolar, IND.
Cureus. 2025 May 24;17(5):e84732. doi: 10.7759/cureus.84732. eCollection 2025 May.
Background Lateral epicondylitis (LE), commonly referred to as tennis elbow, is a widespread condition characterized by elbow pain and functional impairment. Conservative treatment options include physiotherapy, pharmacotherapy, and interventional procedures such as dry needling (DN) and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections. HA, an emerging treatment, has shown anti-inflammatory and lubricating properties, which may enhance tendon healing. However, direct comparative evidence between HA and DN injections for the management of LE remains limited. The main objective of this research was to compare the functional outcomes of HA injections versus DN in patients with LE, specifically focusing on pain relief, and overall functional improvement over a six-month period. Materials and methods A retrospective comparative study was conducted at a tertiary care institution between June and November 2024, involving 64 patients diagnosed with LE. The patients were divided into two equal groups: Group A (hyaluronic acid injection, n=32) received a single-dose hyaluronic acid injection under ultrasound guidance, followed by rehabilitation, while Group B (dry needling, n=32) underwent peritendinous dry needling using a 25G needle. Pain reduction was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and functional improvement was evaluated using the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH), Oxford Elbow Score, Mayo Elbow Score, and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) at baseline, post-procedure, first month, third months and sixth months. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 22 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Results At six months, HA injections demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in pain, as measured by the VAS (2.41±0.50 vs. 3.44±0.56, p < 0.001), and superior functional outcomes in the QuickDASH (19.03±2.93 vs. 23.44±3.64, p<0.001), the Oxford Elbow Score (91.87±5.89 vs. 82.13±1.52, p<0.001), and the Mayo Elbow Score (91.75±6.34 vs. 82.41±2.00, p <0.001). The complication rates were lower in the HA group, with significantly less local tenderness (3.1% vs. 25.0%). Conclusion Both HA injection and DN effectively improved pain and function in LE patients, but HA demonstrated superior long-term efficacy and safety. Future studies with larger sample sizes and extended follow-up periods are recommended.
背景 外侧上髁炎(LE),通常称为网球肘,是一种常见病症,其特征为肘部疼痛和功能障碍。保守治疗选择包括物理治疗、药物治疗以及诸如干针疗法(DN)和透明质酸(HA)注射等介入程序。HA作为一种新兴治疗方法,已显示出抗炎和润滑特性,这可能会促进肌腱愈合。然而,HA和DN注射治疗LE的直接对比证据仍然有限。本研究的主要目的是比较HA注射与DN治疗LE患者的功能结局,特别关注疼痛缓解情况以及六个月期间的整体功能改善。
材料与方法 2024年6月至11月在一家三级医疗机构进行了一项回顾性对比研究,纳入64例诊断为LE的患者。患者被平均分为两组:A组(透明质酸注射,n = 32)在超声引导下接受单剂量透明质酸注射,随后进行康复治疗,而B组(干针疗法,n = 32)使用25G针进行腱周干针治疗。在基线、治疗后、第一个月、第三个月和第六个月,使用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评估疼痛减轻情况,并使用手臂、肩部和手部快速残疾评定量表(QuickDASH)、牛津肘部评分、梅奥肘部评分和患者自评网球肘评估量表(PRTEE)评估功能改善情况。使用SPSS 22版(IBM公司,纽约州阿蒙克)进行统计分析。
结果 在六个月时,HA注射在VAS测量中显示出疼痛显著减轻(2.41±0.50对3.44±0.56,p < 0.001),并且在QuickDASH(19.03±2.93对23.44±3.64,p<0.001)、牛津肘部评分(91.87±5.89对82.13±1.52,p<0.001)和梅奥肘部评分(91.75±6.34对82.41±2.00,p <0.001)方面具有更好的功能结局。HA组的并发症发生率较低,局部压痛明显较少(3.1%对25.0%)。
结论 HA注射和DN均有效改善了LE患者的疼痛和功能,但HA显示出更好的长期疗效和安全性。建议未来进行更大样本量和更长随访期的研究。