ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of dextrose prolotherapy versus steroid injection in the treatment of patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis. METHODS: Thirty subjects with chronic lateral epicondylitis were randomly assigned into two groups of hypertonic dextrose or methylprednisolone injection. Participants were assessed through Quick DASH and VAS scores, once before injection, and then after 1- and 3-months follow-up. Two patients were excluded due to not completing the follow-up timepoints. RESULTS: In both groups VAS scores revealed significant improvement during the first month follow-up [mean difference (MD) = 1.9±3.3, versus 1.5±1.9 for the prolotherapy and steroid groups, respectively]. This declining trajectory continued at the third month visit in the prolotherapy group and MD reached 4.4±2.9, while it did not change remarkably in the steroid group (MD=1.9±3.4). In fact, comparing VAS scores between the 1st- and 3rd-month time points did not reveal a significant improvement in the steroid group (p=0.6). Also, the Quick DASH index showed a similar pattern and improved remarkably in both groups during the first visit. However, only the efficacy in the prolotherapy group persisted after 3-month follow-up (MD = 9.5±21.6, p=0.044). One month after injections no preference between the two interventions was observed (p=0.74 for VAS and 0.14 for Quick DASH score). However, the 3rd-month follow-up revealed a meaningful superiority (p=0.03 for VAS and p=0.01 for Quick DASH score) favoring the prolotherapy method. CONCLUSION: Both methods were proven to be effective in the short-term treatment of chronic lateral epicondylitis, but dextrose prolotherapy seems to be slightly more efficacious than steroid injection over a longer period.Clinical trial registration: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials Database: IRCT20170311033000N3.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Antioxidants play a major role in the cellular protection cascade against oxidative damage. Oxidative stress has been linked to the pathogenesis of coronary atherosclerosis. Our aim was to evaluate the association between calculated serum total antioxidant status (cTAS) and the presence and severity of coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: One hundred and seventy-four patients with angiographically documented significant (≥50%) luminal stenosis (n=123) or with minimal (<50%) luminal stenosis (n=51) in at least one coronary artery or major branch segment in the epicardial coronary tree were categorized as CAD+ group; 88 patients with no luminal stenosis were considered as the control group. The level of cTAS (mmol/L) was evaluated using the following equation: (0.63×albumin concentration)+(1.02×uric acid concentration)+(1.53×bilirubin concentration). RESULTS: In univariate analyses, mean levels of cTAS, uric acid, and creatinine were significantly higher in CAD+ group than in controls. However, adjusted cTAS level was not found to be a CAD predictor in the total population [odds ratio (OR)=1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-1.76; p=0.364] or in men (OR=1.25; 95% CI: 0.73-2.12; p=0.420) and women (OR=1.20; 95% CI: 0.66-2.19; p=0.553). A weak but statistically significant correlation was found between cTAS and Gensini score (Spearman's ρ=0.16, p=0.015). CONCLUSION: In patients with suspicious CAD, the level of cTAS was not found to be an independent predictor for the presence of CAD. Further studies with larger sample size are required to confirm the results.
