BACKGROUND: Lateral epicondylitis is a common cause of elbow pain that is generally self-limiting. For patients who have persistent symptoms refractory to conservative treatment, there is still no clear consensus on the most favorable treatment modality. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the available literature regarding both nonoperative and operative treatment modalities for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis (RLE) to provide insight into the efficacy of treatment options.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, where the PubMed, MEDLINE/Ovid, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were queried to identify studies evaluating treatment options for RLE.
RESULTS: A total of 27 studies with 1,958 patients were included. Of the reviewed studies, there were a wide variety of treatments including platelet-rich plasma injections, percutaneous tenotomies, and various arthroscopic and open procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: There are a wide variety of treatment modalities available for RLE that have promising efficacy in the short, medium, and long terms. A comprehensive approach combining evidence-based and patient-centered care is critical for effective management of refractory symptoms.
METHODS: Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background and Objectives: Biodex System® is an advanced dynamometer used for testing various biomechanical parameters of muscles. Test outcomes allow for the identification of muscle pathology and consequently lead to a clinical diagnosis. Despite being widely used for the testing and rehabilitation of the human musculoskeletal system, no universal and acceptable protocol for wrist examination has been proposed for patients with wrist pathology. In this study, the authors aim to identify the most appropriate protocol for testing the biomechanical parameters of flexors and extensors of the wrist. Materials and Methods: A group of 20 patients with symptomatic tennis elbow and 26 healthy volunteers were examined using three different protocols: isokinetic, isometric and isotonic. Protocol order for each study participant was assigned at random with a minimum of a 24 h break between protocols. All protocol parameters were set according to data obtained from a literature review and an earlier pilot study. Following completion of each protocol, participants filled out a questionnaire-based protocol, assessing pain intensity during the exam, difficulty with exam performance and post-exam muscle fatigue. Results: The isotonic protocol showed the best patient tolerance and the highest questionnaire score. There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the three protocols in average pain intensity reported by study participants. All participants completed the isotonic protocol, but not all patients with symptomatic tennis elbow were able to complete the isometric and isokinetic protocols. The isotonic protocol was deemed \"difficult but possible to complete\" by study participants. Conclusions: The isotonic protocol is most suitable for testing the flexors and extensors of the wrist. It gives the most biomechanical data of all protocols, is well tolerated by patients and rarely causes pain during examination even in symptomatic participants.

The study\'s goal was to compare and evaluate the benefits of deep friction massage and ultrasonic therapy (US) vs extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) for people with lateral epicondylitis. This double-blind, parallel-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted after ethical approval on a sample of 80 subjects with lateral epicondylitis. Participants were enrolled based on predefined eligibility criteria. They were randomly allocated to groups A and B. Group A received ESWT, while Group B received the US combined with deep friction massage. Data was collected using the Numeric Pain Rating Score (NPRS) and Patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation questionnaire (PRTEE) at baseline, at 3rd, and at 7th week of treatment. On the basis of the normality of the data, a non-parametric test was applied to evaluate between-group and within-group differences. P value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. There was a significant difference between groups (p < 0.001). Comparisons of PRTEE scores at 3rd week and 7th week of intervention were found significant for both groups (p < 0.001). While considering between-group comparisons based on percentile scores of PRTEE at baseline, 3rd and 7th week of intervention, in group A Median (IQR) at the baseline was 24.00 (5.00), at 3rd week, 10.00 (5.00) and 7th week was 1.50 (2.50) and in group B Median (IQR) at the baseline was 25.00 (4.00), at 3rd week 19.50 (4.50) and at 7th week was 11.50 (2.50). The results were significant in both groups (p = 0.000), but between-group analysis revealed that ESWT is more effective in patients with lateral epicondylitis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current evidence comparing low level to high level laser therapy to reveal any superiorities in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders.
METHODS: Five databases were searched till September 2022 to obtain relevant RCTs comparing high intensity and low-level laser therapies in the management of musculoskeletal disorders. Two authors assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale and meta-analysis was conducted for studies that showed homogeneity.
RESULTS: Twelve articles were included in this systematic review with a total population of 704 participants across various musculoskeletal pathologies including tennis elbow, carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic non-specific low back pain, knee arthritis, plantar fasciitis, and subacromial impingement. There were no statistical differences between the two interventions in pain, electrophysiological parameters, level of disability, quality of life, postural sway or pressure algometer, however, Low level laser therapy showed superiority in increasing grip strength compared to high intensity laser therapy while results were significant in favour of high intensity laser therapy regarding long head of biceps diameter and cross sectional area, supraspinatus thickness and echogenicity and acromio-humeral distance.
CONCLUSIONS: The current literature suggests no superiority of both types of laser therapy in musculoskeletal disorders, however, more RCTs with larger sample size are required to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the superiority of either form of laser therapy in musculoskeletal disorders.

BACKGROUND: Because lateral epicondylitis is a common musculoskeletal disorder that affects the forearm\'s extensor tendons, an effective therapeutic approach should reverse the degeneration and promote regeneration. This study aimed to compare the efficacies of autologous blood (AB) injection, corticosteroid (CS) injection, and a combined injection of both in treating lateral epicondylitis (LE), hypothesizing that the combined approach might offer immediate symptom resolution and a lower recurrence.
METHODS: A total of 120 patients diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis were systematically distributed among three distinct therapeutic injection groups. Those in the AB group were administered 1 ml of autologous venous blood mixed with 2 ml of 2% prilocaine HCl. Participants in the CS category were given 1 ml of 40 mg methylprednisolone acetate mixed with 2 ml of 2% prilocaine HCl. Meanwhile, patients in the combined group received a mixture containing 1 ml each of autologous venous blood and 40 mg methylprednisolone acetate along with 1 ml of 2% prilocaine HCl. Prior to receiving their respective injections, a comprehensive assessment of all participants was carried out. Follow-up assessments were subsequently conducted on days 15, 30, and 90 utilizing metrics of the patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE) and measurements of hand grip strength (HGS).
RESULTS: One patient dropped out from the combined group, and 119 patients completed the trial. No complications were recorded during the course of follow-up. By day 15, all groups had demonstrated significant PRTEE improvement, with CS showing the most pronounced reduction (p = 0.001). However, the benefits of CS had deteriorated by day 30 and had deteriorated further by day 90. The AB and AB + CS groups demonstrated sustained improvement, with AB + CS revealing the most effective treatment, achieving a clinically significant improvement in 97.4% of the patients. The improved HGS parallelled the functional enhancements, as it was more substantial in the AB and AB + CS groups (p = 0.001), corroborating the sustained benefits of these treatments.
CONCLUSIONS: The study concluded that while AB and CS individually offer distinct benefits, a combined AB + CS approach optimizes therapeutic outcomes, providing swift and sustained functional improvement with a lower recurrence rate. These findings have substantial clinical implications, suggesting a balanced, multimodal treatment strategy for enhanced patient recovery in LE.
METHODS: Randomized clinical trial, level 1 evidence.
BACKGROUND: NCT06236178.

Background Lateral epicondylitis is a common condition involving the arm. It is caused by degenerative changes or overuse of the tendon connecting the elbow joint to the forearm muscle. Plyometric and TheraBand FlexBar (Theraband, Akron, OH, USA) exercises can relieve elbow discomfort, soreness, and weakness. This study examines the effects of plyometric and TheraBand FlexBar exercises with ultrasound on tennis elbow patients. Methodology It is an experimental study comprising a total of 30 participants, including individuals of both genders with age groups of 20-40 years were selected by specific criteria for inclusion and exclusion. The participants were randomly assigned into two groups. Group A received plyometric exercises with ultrasound, whereas Group B received TheraBand FlexBar exercises with ultrasound. The outcome measures utilized in this study include patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE) and visual analog scale (VAS) for evaluating the functional disability of the hand, arm, and shoulder. Results The results showed a substantial reduction in mean values in Group A compared to Group B, with a p-value of less than 0.001, indicating that plyometric exercises with ultrasound were more effective than TheraBand FlexBar exercises. Conclusion Plyometric exercises combined with ultrasound therapy demonstrated significant reductions in discomfort and improvements in function, with plyometric exercises showing superior efficacy compared to TheraBand FlexBar exercises.

Aim: To investigate the analyze the relationship between concentration platelet-dose in platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections and improvements in pain when treating lateral epicondylitis. Methods: A systematic review was conducted into five medical databases, exploring the difference in pain outcomes based on concentration of PRP. Results: Initial querying of the databases yielded 1408 articles with 20 articles ultimately included. There was no statistical significance between effect sizes of the two treatment groups (high and low platelet concentration; p = 0.976). Conclusion: Both large and small concentrations of platelets depict significant reduction in pain, however, between subgroups there was no significance. It can thus be concluded that concentration of platelets in PRP does not impact overall pain relief.
[Box: see text].

Understanding the true effects of exercise in the treatment of lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is hampered by insufficient information or a lack of standardisation in defining, measuring, reporting and analysis of exercise adherence.
This scoping review aimed to explore both the quantity and scope of reporting of exercise adherence in published studies of participants with LET.
Six databases were searched to identify original research studies written in English, investigating therapeutic exercise for LET. Eligible studies were first searched for terms related to exercise adherence. If provided, information on the terminology, definition, measurement, results and analysis of adherence were collated and summarised. Recommendations for standardized reporting of exercise adherence were developed.
104 studies were identified, of which 74 (71%) did not report adherence or related terms. Reference to exercise compliance or adherence occurred in 17 and 13 studies respectively. Adherence was most commonly defined as the frequency or percentage of exercise sessions completed compared to the recommendation and measured by self-reported diary. Few studies defined a threshold for adherence, provided comprehensive reporting of results or analysis of exercise adherence.
Reporting of exercise adherence in studies of LET was limited in both quantity and scope. Recommendations are made to improve the quality and consistency of reporting in future studies.

Manual therapy and prescribed exercises are often provided together or separately in contemporary clinical practice to treat people with lateral elbow pain.
To assess the benefits and harms of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both for adults with lateral elbow pain.
We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and trial registries until 31 January 2024, unrestricted by language or date of publication.
We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Participants were adults with lateral elbow pain. Interventions were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both. Primary comparators were placebo or minimal or no intervention. We also included comparisons of manual therapy and prescribed exercises with either intervention alone, with or without glucocorticoid injection. Exclusions were trials testing a single application of an intervention or comparison of different types of manual therapy or prescribed exercises.
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and numerical data, and assessed study risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The main comparisons were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both compared with placebo treatment, and with minimal or no intervention. Major outcomes were pain, disability, heath-related quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, participant withdrawals, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint was end of intervention for pain, disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success and final time point for adverse events and withdrawals.
Twenty-three trials (1612 participants) met our inclusion criteria (mean age ranged from 38 to 52 years, 47% female, 70% dominant arm affected). One trial (23 participants) compared manual therapy to placebo manual therapy, 12 trials (1124 participants) compared manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to minimal or no intervention, six trials (228 participants) compared manual therapy and exercise to exercise alone, one trial (60 participants) compared the addition of manual therapy to prescribed exercises and glucocorticoid injection, and four trials (177 participants) assessed the addition of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to glucocorticoid injection. Twenty-one trials without placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection bias as participants were not blinded to the intervention. Other biases included selection (nine trials, 39%, including two quasi-randomised), attrition (eight trials, 35%) and selective reporting (15 trials, 65%) biases. We report the results of the main comparisons. Manual therapy versus placebo manual therapy Low-certainty evidence, based upon a single trial (23 participants) and downgraded due to indirectness and imprecision, indicates manual therapy may reduce pain and elbow disability at the end of two to three weeks of treatment. Mean pain at the end of treatment was 4.1 points with placebo (0 to 10 scale) and 2.0 points with manual therapy, MD -2.1 points (95% CI -4.2 to -0.1). Mean disability was 40 points with placebo (0 to 100 scale) and 15 points with manual therapy, MD -25 points (95% CI -43 to -7). There was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment to show if these effects were sustained, and no other major outcomes were reported. Manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both versus minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence indicates manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but the effects were not sustained, and there may be little to no improvement in health-related quality of life or number of participants reporting treatment success. We downgraded the evidence due to increased risk of performance bias and detection bias across all the trials, and indirectness due to the multimodal nature of the interventions included in the trials. At four weeks to three months, mean pain was 5.10 points with minimal treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced pain by a MD of -0.53 points (95% CI -0.92 to -0.14, I2 = 43%; 12 trials, 1023 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean disability was 63.8 points with minimal or no treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced disability by a MD of -5.00 points (95% CI -9.22 to -0.77, I2 = 63%; 10 trials, 732 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean quality of life was 73.04 points with minimal treatment on a 0 to 100 scale and prescribed exercises reduced quality of life by a MD of -5.58 points (95% CI -10.29 to -0.99; 2 trials, 113 participants). Treatment success was reported by 42% of participants with minimal or no treatment and 57.1% of participants with manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both, RR 1.36 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.93, I2 = 73%; 6 trials, 770 participants). We are uncertain if manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both results in more withdrawals or adverse events. There were 83/566 participant withdrawals (147 per 1000) from the minimal or no intervention group, and 77/581 (126 per 1000) from the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.12, I2 = 0%; 12 trials). Adverse events were mild and transient and included pain, bruising and gastrointestinal events, and no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events were reported by 19/224 (85 per 1000) in the minimal treatment group and 70/233 (313 per 1000) in the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 3.69 (95% CI 0.98 to 13.97, I2 = 72%; 6 trials).
Low-certainty evidence from a single trial in people with lateral elbow pain indicates that, compared with placebo, manual therapy may provide a clinically worthwhile benefit in terms of pain and disability at the end of treatment, although the 95% confidence interval also includes both an important improvement and no improvement, and the longer-term outcomes are unknown. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials indicates that manual therapy and exercise may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but this may not be clinically worthwhile and these benefits are not sustained. While pain after treatment was an adverse event from manual therapy, the number of events was too small to be certain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of Maitland accessory mobilization and neural mobilization in patients with tennis elbow.
METHODS: Twenty-five patients meeting the selection criteria were randomly assigned to three experimental groups: Group C (conventional treatment), Group B (neural mobilization), and Group A (Maitland mobilization). Quality of life was assessed using the Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), while pain, range of motion, and grip strength were evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), a universal goniometer, and a handheld dynamometer. The interventions were administered three times per week for four weeks to the respective groups.
RESULTS: Non-parametric tests were employed to analyze the results due to the non-normal distribution of the data (p < 0.05). Both the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were utilized to assess differences within and between groups. The results of the between-group analysis demonstrated significant differences in pain (p = 0.018) and quality of life (p = 0.045) among the three groups.
CONCLUSIONS: After a 4-week intervention, all three groups exhibited notable improvements in discomfort levels, grip strength, and quality of life. Notably, Group B demonstrated the most substantial increase in range of motion (ROM) compared to Groups A and C. Consequently, incorporating neural mobilization into the treatment plan is recommended for patients experiencing Tennis Elbow.