Matthew P Mead1, Jonathan P Gumucio1,2, Tariq M Awan1, Christopher L Mendias1,2, Kristoffer B Sugg1,2,3. 1. Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI. 2. Departments of Molecular & Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Departments of Surgery, Section of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Tendinopathy is a major clinical problem in sports medicine and is often difficult to treat. Traditional therapeutic approaches have focused on reducing inflammation, yet research suggests that little to no inflammation is present in the tendons that fail to heal. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of the available treatment options for tendinopathy and to inform best clinical practices. DESIGN: A narrative review. METHODS: A comprehensive search of electronic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar and Web of Science) was conducted to identify relevant studies through June 2016. Studies were deemed relevant if they were published in English and contained original research on the management of tendinopathy in humans. RESULTS: Studies varied in methodological quality and were often limited by small sample size and lack of sufficient control groups. Critical evaluation of the literature suggests that physical therapy with or without eccentric exercise should be considered a first-line treatment. Corticosteroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs provide short-term symptomatic relief, but long-term efficacy has not been demonstrated. Inconsistent results do not support the routine use of prolotherapy, platelet-rich plasma injections and topical nitric oxide patches. Operative intervention should be reserved until conservative measures fail or an obvious operative lesion is present. CONCLUSIONS: While numerous therapeutic modalities exist for tendinopathy in the athlete, the ideal treatment protocol has not been clearly defined. The development of new targeted therapies for tendinopathy is likely to follow a greater understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanisms that underlie its pathogenesis.
OBJECTIVE: Tendinopathy is a major clinical problem in sports medicine and is often difficult to treat. Traditional therapeutic approaches have focused on reducing inflammation, yet research suggests that little to no inflammation is present in the tendons that fail to heal. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of the available treatment options for tendinopathy and to inform best clinical practices. DESIGN: A narrative review. METHODS: A comprehensive search of electronic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar and Web of Science) was conducted to identify relevant studies through June 2016. Studies were deemed relevant if they were published in English and contained original research on the management of tendinopathy in humans. RESULTS: Studies varied in methodological quality and were often limited by small sample size and lack of sufficient control groups. Critical evaluation of the literature suggests that physical therapy with or without eccentric exercise should be considered a first-line treatment. Corticosteroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs provide short-term symptomatic relief, but long-term efficacy has not been demonstrated. Inconsistent results do not support the routine use of prolotherapy, platelet-rich plasma injections and topical nitric oxide patches. Operative intervention should be reserved until conservative measures fail or an obvious operative lesion is present. CONCLUSIONS: While numerous therapeutic modalities exist for tendinopathy in the athlete, the ideal treatment protocol has not been clearly defined. The development of new targeted therapies for tendinopathy is likely to follow a greater understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanisms that underlie its pathogenesis.
Authors: Nynke Smidt; Willem J J Assendelft; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Elaine M Hay; Rachelle Buchbinder; Lex M Bouter Journal: Pain Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Nynke Smidt; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Willem J J Assendelft; Walter L J M Devillé; Ingeborg B C Korthals-de Bos; Lex M Bouter Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-02-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michelle Petri; Stephen L Hufman; Gregory Waser; Harry Cui; Michael C Snabes; Kenneth M Verburg Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Elizabeth G Canty; Yinhui Lu; Roger S Meadows; Michael K Shaw; David F Holmes; Karl E Kadler Journal: J Cell Biol Date: 2004-05-24 Impact factor: 10.539
Authors: Nathaniel P Disser; Kristoffer B Sugg; Jeffrey R Talarek; Dylan C Sarver; Brennan J Rourke; Christopher L Mendias Journal: FASEB J Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Andrew C Noah; Thomas M Li; Leandro M Martinez; Susumu Wada; Jacob B Swanson; Nathaniel P Disser; Kristoffer B Sugg; Scott A Rodeo; Theresa T Lu; Christopher L Mendias Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2020-01-16
Authors: Vishal Deshmukh; Tim Seo; Alyssa L O'Green; Maureen Ibanez; Brian Hofilena; Sunil Kc; Joshua Stewart; Luis Dellamary; Kevin Chiu; Abdullah Ghias; Charlene Barroga; Sarah Kennedy; Jeyanesh Tambiah; John Hood; Yusuf Yazici Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Dylan C Sarver; Kristoffer B Sugg; Jeffrey R Talarek; Jacob B Swanson; David J Oliver; Aaron C Hinken; Henning F Kramer; Christopher L Mendias Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2019-11