| Literature DB >> 30650587 |
Antonio Galván Ruiz1,2, Gloria Vergara Díaz3,4, Beatriz Rendón Fernández5, Carmen Echevarría Ruiz De Vargas6,7.
Abstract
How effective and safe are incobotulinumtoxinA injections in adult patients with lateral epicondylitis refractory to other treatments? In this experimental study, ultrasound-guided incobotulinumtoxinA 10⁻30 U/muscle was injected into extensor carpi ulnaris, extensor digiti minimi, extensor digitorum longus and extensor carpi radialis brevis muscles. Pain (visual analogue scale [VAS], 0 to 10 [no pain to severe pain]) and upper-limb functionality (QuickDASH scale, 0 to 100 [best to worst]), assessed at baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months post-treatment, were analysed using repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post-hoc tests. Secondary analyses stratifying patient population by sex and baseline VAS were performed. Adverse events were reported. Twenty-four patients (mean [standard deviation] age 46.8 years) were included. Compared with baseline, mean VAS and QuickDASH scores improved at all follow-ups (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively; repeated-measures ANOVA). Secondary analyses revealed significant differences between baseline and all follow-ups in the group with baseline VAS ≥ 6 and in males and females (all p < 0.05, Tukey post-hoc test). No adverse events, except for the expected third finger weakness, were reported. In conclusion, ultrasound-guided incobotulinumtoxinA injections may be an effective treatment for lateral epicondylitis in the appropriate patient population.Entities:
Keywords: botulinum toxin A; incobotulinumtoxinA; lateral epicondylitis; pain; rehabilitation; tennis elbow
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30650587 PMCID: PMC6356468 DOI: 10.3390/toxins11010046
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxins (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6651 Impact factor: 4.546
Patient baseline demographics and characteristics.
| Patients | |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Male | 8 (33.3) |
| Female | 16 (66.7) |
| Age years | |
| Mean (SD) | 46.8 (9) |
| Median (interquartile range) | 48.5 (43.0 to 52.8) |
| Patients with right dominance, n (%) | 24 (100) |
| Injured side | |
| Left | 5 (20.8) |
| Right | 19 (79.2) |
| Symptom progression time, months | |
| Mean (SD) | 20.0 (19.8) |
| Median (interquartile range) | 12 (9.3 to 24.0) |
| Pain, baseline VAS score | |
| Mean (SD) | 6.85 (1.8) |
| Median (interquartile range) | 7 (5.3 to 8.4) |
| Upper limb functionality, baseline QuickDASH score | |
| Mean (SD) | 60.12 (20.9) |
| Median (interquartile range) | 60 (45.0 to 79.5) |
| Previous ineffective treatments | |
| Analgesics/NSAIDs | 24 (100) |
| Physiotherapy | 17 (70.8) |
| Electrotherapy | 13 (54.2) |
| Peritendinous injections | 20 (83.3) |
| Positive resisted manoeuvres at baseline | |
| Extensor carpi ulnaris | 7 (29.2) |
| Extensor digiti minimi | 10 (41.7) |
| Extensor digitorum longus | 21 (87.5) |
| Extensor carpi radialis brevis | 20 (83.3) |
VAS range: 0 (best) to 10 (worst); QuickDASH scale range: 0 (best) to 100 (worst). NSAID, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug; SD, standard deviation; VAS, visual analogue scale.
IncobotulinumtoxinA doses per muscle.
| Muscle Treated | IncobotulinumtoxinA Dose, U | Number of Patients Treated, |
|---|---|---|
| Extensor carpi ulnaris | 20 | 7 (29.2) |
| Extensor digiti minimi | 10 | 9 (37.5) |
| Extensor digitorum longus | 30 | 21 (87.5) |
| Extensor carpi radialis brevis | 20 | 20 (83.3) |
Doses were predefined for each muscle based on muscle size. Patients could receive treatment in > 1 muscle if clinically required.
Figure 1Pain intensity and functionality by visit: (a) VAS score (pain); and (b) QuickDASH score (functionality). * Statistically significant difference between baseline and follow-up assessments at Months 1, 3 and 6; Tukey post-hoc analysis; p < 0.05. VAS range: 0 (best) to 10 (worst); QuickDASH scale range: 0 (best) to 100 (worst). SD, standard deviation; VAS, visual analogue scale.
Figure 2Pain intensity and functionality by visit and baseline VAS score: (a) VAS score (pain); and (b) QuickDASH score (functionality). * Statistically significant difference between baseline and follow-up assessments at Months 1, 3 and 6; Tukey post-hoc analysis; p < 0.05. Median VAS score at baseline and Months 1, 2 and 3, respectively: VAS score ≥ 6, 7.2, 5.0, 5.0, 4.8; VAS score < 6, 4.5, 2.0, 1.0, 0.5. Median QuickDASH score at baseline and Months 1, 2 and 3, respectively: VAS score ≥ 6, 72.5, 48.9, 52.5, 29.0; VAS score < 6, 45.0, 42.5, 23.5, 14.0. VAS range: 0 (best) to 10 (worst); QuickDASH scale range: 0 (best) to 100 (worst). ns, not significant; SD, standard deviation; VAS, visual analogue scale.
Figure 3Pain intensity and functionality by visit and sex: (a) VAS score (pain); and (b) QuickDASH score (functionality). * Statistically significant difference between baseline and follow-up assessments at Months 1, 3 and 6; Tukey post-hoc analysis; p < 0.05. VAS range: 0 (best) to 10 (worst); QuickDASH scale range: 0 (best) to 100 (worst). SD, standard deviation; VAS, visual analogue scale. ns: not significant