Corticosteroid injection in early treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze whether a corticosteroid injection in combination with rehabilitation early in the course of lateral epicondylitis (LE) alters the outcome up to 6 months after injection compared with a control injection and rehabilitation. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, double-blind study. SETTING: Sports medicine center in a tertiary care center. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects with a diagnosis of LE whose symptoms had been present less than 4 weeks were included. Subjects were recruited by word of mouth and through advertising. The 39 subjects who were recruited were 18 to 65 years old. INTERVENTIONS: 19 subjects were randomized to receive rehabilitation and a sham injection, and 20 were randomized to receive rehabilitation and a corticosteroid injection. At 4 and 8 weeks, they were reevaluated and their treatment programs were modified, if indicated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measurements were performed at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 6 months, and included a functional pain questionnaire and a visual analogue pain scale. Painless grip strength on the affected side and maximal grip strength bilaterally were measured at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in outcome between the two groups with the exception of an improvement in the visual analogue pain scale in the corticosteroid group from 8 weeks to 6 months. Outcome measurements in both groups improved significantly over time; more than 80% of subjects reported improvements from baseline to 6 months for all scales. CONCLUSION: A corticosteroid injection does not provide a clinically significant improvement in the outcome of LE, and rehabilitation should be the first line of treatment in patients with a short duration of symptoms.

Measurement of trunk flexibility in normal subjects: reproducibility of three clinical methods.

Although measurements of trunk flexibility are an important part of a clinical examination, subjective methods are usually used to assess spinal mobility. We studied three easily performed objective techniques for determining trunk flexibility (the common "fingertip-to-floor" test, the modified Schober and Moll tests, and the Loebl inclinometer method) and their interexaminer and intraexaminer reproducibility. On 3 different days, each of 25 normal subjects was tested by the same investigator. In 25 other subjects, the studies were performed by a different examiner (one of three) on each of 3 days. We recorded the following mean coefficients of variation for interexaminer and intraexaminer reproducibility of results, respectively: fingertip-to-floor, 83% and 76.4%; flexion (Schober), 6.3% and 6.6%; right lateral flexion (Moll), 11.9% and 8.9%; left lateral flexion (Moll), 10.2% and 9.5%; extension (Moll), 9.5% and 7.3%; lumbar flexion (Loebl), 9.6% and 13.4%; and lumbar extension (Loebl), 65.4% and 50.7%. Although the reproducibility of the "fingertip-to-floor" test and the Loebl extension test was poor, all other tests studied had good reproducibility. The consistency of results with repeated testing should be considered in the application of various trunk flexibility tests to clinical and research data.