메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
Ralph Maroun (Thomas Jefferson Medical Center) Mohammad Daher (Thomas Jefferson Medical Center) Peter Boufadel (Thomas Jefferson Medical Center) Ryan Lopez (Thomas Jefferson Medical Center) Adam Z Khan (Southern California Permanente Medical Group) Joseph A. Abboud (Thomas Jefferson Medical Center)
저널정보
대한견주관절의학회 대한견주관절의학회지 대한견주관절의학회지 제28권 제1호
발행연도
2025.3
수록면
40 - 48 (9page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Background: Lateral epicondylitis, colloquially known as tennis elbow, is a common cause of elbow pain and daily task disability. Caused by repetitive movement, it is typically a degenerative rather than inflammatory event and affects mostly middle-aged patients. Despite its good prognostic nature, its economic burden on the healthcare system encourages research on the efficacity of non-operative injection treatments. This article aims to compare the clinical effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroid (CS) injections in managing lateral epicondylitis.
Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1–20) were searched up to March 2024. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The clinical outcomes evaluated were the visual analog scale (VAS) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score.
Results: Twenty-six randomized controlled trials with 1.877 patients were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of VAS scores, short-term results (<2 months) favored CS over PRP (P=0.03; mean difference [MD], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.28), whereas long-term results (>6 months) favored PRP (P<0.001; MD, –1.60; 95% CI, –2.01 to –1.20]). Intermediate-term results (2–6 months) showed no significant difference between injection treatments. In terms of DASH scores, short- and intermediate-term results showed no significant difference, where-as long-term results favored PRP (P<0.001; MD, –4.87; 95% CI, –7.69 to –2.06).
Conclusions: CS provides significantly better short-term pain relief, while PRP provides better long-term functional improvement and clinical long-term pain relief. However, future studies should focus on other injection protocols or addition of other non-invasive modalities.

목차

INTRODUCTION
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-151-25-02-092506725