Purpose: To examine the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and injection therapies by synthesizing direct and indirect evidence for all pairs of competing therapies for lateral epicondylitis.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched for all appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs), assessing the effect of ESWT or injection therapies. The primary outcome was short-term (≤3 months) and medium-term (>3 months but ≤12 months) pain, while the secondary outcomes were grip strength and patient-reported outcome measures. All outcomes were assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities to determine a hierarchy of treatments. Sensitivity analysis was performed to eliminate potential therapeutic effects of normal saline (NS) and exclude trials that included patients with acute lateral epicondylitis (LE).

Results: 40 RCTs were included to evaluate ESWT and five different injection therapies, including corticosteroids (CSs), autologous whole blood, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A), and dextrose prolotherapy (DPT). DPT (-.78 [-1.34 to -.21]), ESWT (.57 [-.89 to -.25]), PRP (-.48 [-.85 to -.11]), and BoNT-A (-.43 [-.84 to -.02]) outperformed placebo for short-term pain relief; ESWT (-.44 [-.85 to -.04]) outperformed placebo for medium-term pain relief. DPT was ranked as the most optimal short-term and medium-term pain reliever (SUCRA, 87.3% and 98.6%, respectively). ESWT was ranked as the most optimal short-term and medium-term grip strength recovery (SUCRA; 79.4% and 86.4%, respectively).

Conclusions: DPT and ESWT were the best two treatment options for pain control and ESWT was the best treatment option for grip strength recovery. CSs were not recommended for the treatment of LE. More evidence is required to confirm the superiority in pain control of DPT among all these treatment options on LE.

Level Of Evidence: Level I, meta-analysis of Level I randomized controlled trials.

Background: Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a common elbow problem. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) was widely used in the treatment of LE and has been shown to relieve the pain and functional impairment (loss of grip strength) caused by tennis elbow. However, the evidence with regard to whether ESWT has better clinical efficacy over other method is not clear. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of ESWT with other techniques in the treatment of LE.

Methods: Literature searches of PubMed, OVID, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched up to 30 June, 2019. Only RCTs comparing ESWT with other methods for LE were included. Data collection and extraction, quality assessment, and data analyses were performed according to the Cochrane standards.

Results: A total of 13 articles with 1035 patients were included. Of which, 501 underwent ESWT and 534 underwent other methods. The result of meta-analysis showed that pooled VAS ( = 0.0004) and grip strength ( < 0.00001) were better in the ESWT group.

Conclusion: Based on the existing clinical evidence, extracorporeal shock wave therapy can effectively relieve the pain and functional impairment (loss of grip strength) caused by tennis elbow, with better overall safety than several other methods. However, owing to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality RCTs are needed to support the trend towards better functional outcomes with ESWT.

This study aimed to compare the effects of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) on pain, grip strength, and function in patients with lateral epicondylalgia. This prospective randomized controlled study included 42 patients (22 women and 20 men, mean age: 37) divided into 3 groups. The first group received physiotherapy (n = 14), the second received physiotherapy combined with ESWT (n = 14), and the third received physiotherapy combined with HILT (n = 14). All participants underwent 10 physiotherapy sessions for 2 weeks, 5 sessions per week. In addition to physiotherapy, the ESWT group received 4 ESWT sessions, 2 sessions per week, and the HILT group received 4 HILT sessions, 2 sessions per week. The outcomes were pain intensity as assessed by Visual Analog Scale, grip strength by hand dynamometer, and function by the Duruoz Hand Index and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation-Turkish version questionnaire. The participants were assessed at the beginning of the study (T1/week 0), at the end of treatment (T2/2nd week), and at follow-up (T3/6th week). At follow-up (T3), a significant improvement was observed in all outcomes compared to baseline (T1) in all groups (P < 0.05). Inter-group comparison of the mean differences between baseline and end values showed that the HILT group was superior in all outcomes (P < 0.05). This study showed that physiotherapy alone combined with ESWT and HILT positively affected the treatment of lateral epicondylalgia. Physiotherapy combined with HILT was found to be the most effective for improving pain, grip strength, and function. Clinical trial number: NCT674325.

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) presents a substantial obstacle due to the pain and functional decline, frequently requiring non-surgical treatments. This study contrasts the efficacy of high-ıntensity laser therapy (HILT) and extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in managing LE. A prospective, randomized comparative trial was conducted with 50 participants assigned to either HILT or ESWT groups. Both groups received standard physiotherapy (exercise program and LE bandages), and outcomes, including tenderness, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scale (Q-DASH), and grip strength, were assessed at baseline, 3rd weeks, and 12th weeks. The baseline features of the groups exhibited similarities (p > 0.05). In intra-group comparisons, both HILT and ESWT groups exhibited significant enhancements in tenderness, VAS, Q-DASH, and grip strength (p < 0.05). In inter-group comparisons, the HILT group exhibited superior outcomes in tenderness reduction, pain alleviation, and disability improvement compared to the ESWT group (p < 0.05). Grip strength did not differ significantly across the groups (p > 0.05). Both HILT and ESWT, when combined with standard physiotherapy, showed effectiveness in treating LE. However, HILT demonstrated greater efficacy in terms of tenderness reduction, pain relief, and disability improvement. This study suggests that non-invasive techniques, particularly HILT, can be preferable for managing LE.

Objectives: Recently, high-intensity laser therapy has been used in the therapeutic protocols for pain management. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of high-intensity laser therapy versus other different modalities for improving lateral epicondylitis symptoms.

Methodology: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on prospective randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct until June 2021 using relevant key words. We analyzed the data using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4).

Results: Six randomized controlled trials with 344 patients were included. There is low-quality evidence that high-intensity laser therapy generates a small reduction on pain intensity compared with a control group either during activity (mean difference = -0.98, 95% confidence interval = -1.6 to -0.35, P = 0.002) or during rest (mean difference = -0.98, 95% confidence interval = -1.68 to -0.09, P = 0.03). In addition, there is low-quality evidence that high-intensity laser therapy provides small improvements in quality of life (physical component) compared with control (mean difference = 9.76, 95% confidence interval = 2.69 to 16.83, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: High-intensity laser therapy is an effective therapeutic modality to reduce pain and improve quality of life (36-item short form health survey physical component) in patients experiencing persistent symptoms of lateral epicondylitis. However, grip strength, hand function, and quality of life (36-item short form health survey) did not show significant differences between high-intensity laser therapy and other therapies.

Objective: To investigate the therapeutic effects of dry needling on lateral epicondylitis and identify a relatively more effective needling technique.

Data Sources: English databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Taylor & Francis, ProQuest, Cochrane, Ovid, and Embase) and Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP) were searched.

Study Selection: This study included randomized controlled trials for comparing the effectiveness of dry needling with other treatment methods for lateral epicondylitis. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity and elbow disability, while the secondary outcome measures included grip strength and upper limb function.

Data Extraction: Data extraction was performed by 2 researchers who used the Cochrane risk of bias analysis tool and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database checklist to assess the risk of bias and methodological quality of the included studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the quality of evidence.

Data Synthesis: A total of 17 studies that involved 979 subjects were included in this research. Dry needling exhibited a significant advantage in improving pain intensity among patients with lateral epicondylitis within 1 week after treatment (mean difference [MD]=-0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.88 to -0.02). Within 1 week and in the follow-ups that exceeded 1 week, dry needling also demonstrated better improvement in elbow disability (<1 week: standardized mean difference [SMD]=-1.37, 95% CI, -1.88 to -0.86; ≥1 week: SMD=-1.32, 95% CI, -2.23 to -0.4) and grip strength (<1 week: SMD=0.27, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.53; ≥1 week: SMD=0.45, 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.88). Trigger point dry needling with local twitch response exhibited more significant improvement in pain intensity within 1 week (MD=-1.09, 95% CI, -1.75 to -0.44).

Conclusions: Dry needling demonstrates good therapeutic effects on pain intensity (within 1 week), function, and grip strength among patients with lateral epicondylitis. Local twitch response is necessary in treatment that targets trigger points.

Objective: This meta-analysis evaluated the effect of dry needling alone or combined with other treatment interventions on pain, related-disability, pressure pain sensitivity, and strength in people with lateral epicondylalgia of musculoskeletal origin.

Data Sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases from their inception to 5 April 2020.

Review Methods: Randomized controlled trials collecting outcomes on pain, related-disability, pressure pain thresholds, or strength where one group received dry needling for lateral epicondylalgia of musculoskeletal origin. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Guidelines, methodological quality was assessed with the PEDro score, and the quality of evidence by using the GRADE approach.

Results: Seven studies including 320 patients with lateral epicondylalgia were included. The meta-analysis found that dry needling reduced pain intensity (SMD ‒1.13, 95%CI ‒1.64 to ‒0.62) and related-disability (SMD ‒2.17, 95%CI ‒3.34 to ‒1.01) with large effect sizes compared to a comparative group. Dry needling also increased pressure pain thresholds with a large effect size (SMD 0.98, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.67) and grip strength with a small size effect (SMD 0.48, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.81) when compared to a comparative group. The most significant effect was at short-term. The risk of bias was generally low, but the heterogenicity of the results downgraded the evidence level.

Conclusion: Low to moderate evidence suggests a positive effect of dry needling for pain, pain-related disability, pressure pain sensitivity and strength at short-term in patients with lateral epicondylalgia of musculoskeletal origin.

Level Of Evidence: Therapy, level 1a.

Registration Number: OSF Registry - https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZY3E8.

Study Design: Systematic review.

Introduction: Several treatment methods treat lateral epicondylitis, but there is no consensus regarding the most effective method. Research has suggested that joint mobilizations may help recover patients with lateral epicondylitis.

Purpose Of The Study: To determine if wrist joint manipulations effectively improve pain, grip strength, ROM, and functional outcome in adults with lateral epicondylitis.

Methods: Searches were performed in 6 databases to identify relevant clinical trials. Three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality using the PEDro scale. Standard data were extracted and summarized.

Results: A total of 4 studies met the inclusion criteria. A best-evidence synthesis was used to summarize the results. The included studies found effectiveness in favor of wrist manipulations given for at least 3 weeks to reduce pain in lateral epicondylitis against comparison groups comprising ultrasound, laser, friction massage, and exercises. Functional outcomes varied considerably among studies. Grip strength showed varied results, and no effect was seen on wrist ROM.

Conclusion: The evidence is convincing that wrist joint manipulations positively affect pain in the short term, compared to comparison groups in the management of lateral epicondylitis. Future high-quality studies are recommended.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of adding electrical dry needling and thrust manipulation into a multimodal program of exercise, mobilization, and ultrasound in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy.

Design: Randomized, single-blinded, multicenter, parallel-group trial.

Setting: Thirteen outpatient physical therapy clinics in nine different US states.

Participants: One hundred and forty-three participants (n = 143) with lateral elbow tendinopathy were randomized.

Intervention: Cervical spine manipulation, extremity manipulation, and percutaneous tendon electrical dry needling plus multimodal physical therapy (n = 73) or multimodal physical therapy (n = 70) alone.

Main Measures: The primary outcome was elbow pain intensity and disability as measured by the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 3 months. Secondary outcomes included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Tennis Elbow Functional Scale, Global Rating of Change, and medication intake.

Results: The 2 × 4 analysis of covariance demonstrated that individuals with lateral elbow tendinopathy receiving electrical dry needling and thrust manipulation plus multimodal physical therapy experienced significantly greater improvements in disability (Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation: F = 19.675; P < 0.001), elbow pain intensity (Numeric Pain Rating Scale: F = 22.769; P < 0.001), and function (Tennis Elbow Function Scale: F = 13.269; P < 0.001) than those receiving multimodal physical therapy alone at 3 months. The between-group effect size was large for pain and disability (Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation: standardized mean difference = 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.78, 1.48) in favor of the electrical dry needling and thrust manipulation group.

Conclusions: The inclusion of percutaneous tendon electrical dry needling and thrust manipulation into a multimodal program of exercise, mobilization and ultrasound was more effective than multimodal physical therapy alone in individuals with lateral elbow tendinopathy.Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT03167710 May 30, 2017.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of exercise compared with other conservative interventions in the management of lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) on pain and function.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to grade the certainty of evidence. Self-perceived improvement, pain intensity, pain-free grip strength (PFGS) and elbow disability were used as primary outcome measures.

Eligibility Criteria: RCTs assessing the effectiveness of exercise alone or as an additive intervention compared with passive interventions, wait-and-see or injections in patients with LET.

Results: 30 RCTs (2123 participants, 5 comparator interventions) were identified. Exercise outperformed (low certainty) corticosteroid injections in all outcomes at all time points except short-term pain reduction. Clinically significant differences were found in PFGS at short-term (mean difference (MD): 12.15, (95% CI) 1.69 to 22.6), mid-term (

Md: 22.45, 95% CI 3.63 to 41.3) and long-term follow-up (

Md: 18, 95% CI 11.17 to 24.84). Statistically significant differences (very low certainty) for exercise compared with wait-and-see were found only in self-perceived improvement at short-term, pain reduction and elbow disability at short-term and long-term follow-up. Substantial heterogeneity in descriptions of equipment, load, duration and frequency of exercise programmes were evident.

Conclusions: Low and very low certainty evidence suggests exercise is effective compared with passive interventions with or without invasive treatment in LET, but the effect is small.

Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018082703.

Objective: To analyse treatment effects of eccentric vs. concentric graded exercise in chronic tennis elbow.

Design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Primary care in Uppsala County, Sweden.

Subjects: A total of 120 subjects with tennis elbow lasting more than three months were recruited from primary care and by advertisement.

Intervention: Eccentric (n = 60) or concentric exercise (n = 60), by lowering or lifting a weight, at home daily, for three months with gradually increasing load.

Main Measures: Pain during muscle contraction and muscle elongation, as well as strength, was assessed at baseline and after one, two, three, six, and 12 months. Function and quality of life was assessed at baseline and after three, six and 12 months.

Results: The eccentric exercise group had faster regression of pain, with an average of 10% higher responder rate at all levels of pain reduction, both during muscle contraction and elongation, (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.006, respectively). Significant differences were found in Cox's analysis from two months onwards (HR 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.96, p < 0.02). This represents an absolute pain reduction of 10% in the eccentric vs. the concentric group and a number-needed-to-treat of 10. The eccentric group also had a greater increase of muscle strength than the concentric (p < 0.02). The differences persisted throughout the follow-up period. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding function or quality of life measures.

Conclusion: Eccentric graded exercise reduced pain and increased muscle strength in chronic tennis elbow more effectively than concentric graded exercise.