Comparative Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Intratendinous Prolotherapy Injection with Conventional Treatment to Treat Focal Supraspinatus Tendinosis

<table class="table-group" id="tab2"><tr><td><table class="table"><tr><td class="thead-hr" colspan="1"><hr/></td></tr><tr><td class="align_left">Our study showed the following findings:</td></tr><tr><td class="align_left">1. There was a 20 degree improvement in abduction ROM, which is statistically significant (<svg height="11.7782pt" id="M25" style="vertical-align:-3.42938pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -8.34882 44.5261 11.7782" width="44.5261pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M570 304C570 398 525 448 414 448C385 448 343 445 312 434L329 511L321 518C297 504 262 482 244 460L233 411C195 397 159 381 128 358L135 332C160 347 189 360 224 373L111 -147C97 -210 84 -218 17 -231L13 -257L254 -247L259 -218L233 -216C183 -212 177 -202 189 -142L218 -1C238 -10 266 -12 283 -12C351 3 429 48 483 105C543 168 570 242 570 304ZM482 289C482 161 380 33 304 33C278 33 248 51 233 69L303 396C326 400 352 403 369 403C428 403 482 380 482 289Z" id="g113-113"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)"><path d="M535 323V373H52V323H535ZM535 138V188H52V138H535Z" id="g117-34"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)"><path d="M241 635C89 635 35 457 35 312C35 153 89 -12 240 -12C390 -12 443 166 443 312C443 466 390 635 241 635ZM238 602C329 602 354 454 354 312C354 172 330 22 240 22C152 22 124 173 124 313S148 602 238 602Z" id="g113-49"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)"><path d="M113 -12C146 -12 170 11 170 46C170 78 146 103 114 103S58 78 58 46C58 11 82 -12 113 -12Z" id="g113-47"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)"><path d="M241 635C89 635 35 457 35 312C35 153 89 -12 240 -12C390 -12 443 166 443 312C443 466 390 635 241 635ZM238 602C329 602 354 454 354 312C354 172 330 22 240 22C152 22 124 173 124 313S148 602 238 602Z" id="g113-49"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)"><path d="M285 378C315 398 338 416 353 432C373 451 384 474 384 503C384 579 325 635 236 635H235C182 635 136 610 108 579L65 516L85 496C110 533 150 575 205 575C258 575 300 543 300 481C300 407 232 369 141 339L147 310C163 315 188 321 211 321C268 321 338 284 338 192C338 94 288 40 217 40C160 40 119 68 93 91C85 98 77 97 69 91C60 84 47 71 46 58C44 46 48 35 62 22C75 10 116 -12 162 -12C234 -12 424 62 424 224C424 297 373 359 285 376V378Z" id="g113-52"></path></g></svg>), but only modest in its magnitude.</td></tr><tr><td class="align_left">2. A greater percentage of patients had a decrease in their DASH pain score of 2 or greater, compared to controls, but the comparison of the mean difference in DASH pain score between treatment and control did not reach statistical significance.</td></tr><tr><td class="align_left">3. There was a statistically significant difference in sleep score improvement between intervention and control.</td></tr><tr><td class="align_left">4. The prolotherapy group showed a statistically significant improvement in echogenicity within the area of tendinosis, which is an indication of healing.</td></tr><tr class="table-tr"><td colspan="1"><hr class="tbody-hr"/></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>

<div>Summary of overall findings of this study.</div>

Scientifica

tab2

Table 2

Table 2: Comparative Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Intratendinous Prolotherapy Injection with Conventional Treatment to Treat Focal Supraspinatus Tendinosis 

Table 2 | Comparative Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Intratendinous Prolotherapy Injection with Conventional Treatment to Treat Focal Supraspinatus Tendinosis 