4.0 Review

COMBINED MULTIMODAL THERAPIES FOR CHRONIC TENNIS ELBOW: PILOT STUDY TO TEST PROTOCOLS FOR A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

Journal

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.08.010

Keywords

Braces; Chiropractic; Cryotherapy; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Lateral Humeral Epicondylitis; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Rehabilitation

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [K30-AT-00977-04]
  2. National Center for Research Resources, NIH [C06 RR15433]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The objective of this project was to develop and test protocols for a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of 2 multimodal package therapies for chronic lateral epicondylitis. Methods: Six participants were enrolled after case review and randomized to I of 2 groups (4 in group A and 2 in group B). Group A had high-velocity low-amplitude manipulation, high-voltage pulse galvanic stimulation, counterforce bracing, ice, and exercises, whereas group B had ultrasound, counterforce bracing, and exercise. Both groups had 12 weeks of active care and instructed to restrict usage of the affected elbow. Participants filled Out a visual analog scale and the Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation every week. The pain-free grip strength test was measured at baseline, and at the end of the third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth visits. Results: One participant in group A dropped out before the end of care. Both groups demonstrated changes in all of the outcome variables from the baseline to the end point (12 weeks) of treatment Sample size for a larger future randomized clinical trial was calculated as n = 246 participants. Conclusion: The pilot study demonstrated that the study design is feasible and that patients could be recruited for a 12-week trial of multimodal treatment. A larger trial is warranted in a multicenter setting to detect differences in the effects of these treatment strategies. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2009;32:571-595)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available