Dextrose Prolotherapy versus Control Injections in Painful Rotator

Accepted Manuscript
Dextrose Prolotherapy versus Control Injections in Painful Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy
Helene Bertrand, M.D., CCFP, Kenneth Dean Reeves, M.D.,FAAPM&R, Mr. Cameron
J. Bennett, Simon Bicknell, M.D., FRCPC, An-Lin Cheng, Ph.D. (Statistics)
PII:
S0003-9993(15)01091-6
DOI:
10.1016/j.apmr.2015.08.412
Reference:
YAPMR 56287
To appear in:
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Received Date: 1 August 2015
Accepted Date: 3 August 2015
Please cite this article as: Bertrand H, Reeves KD, Bennett CJ, Bicknell S, Cheng A-L, Dextrose
Prolotherapy versus Control Injections in Painful Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy, ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL
MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.08.412.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Running Head:
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy
Title:
Authors and Affiliations
RI
PT
Dextrose Prolotherapy versus Control Injections in Painful Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy
of Medicine, University of British Columbia.
SC
Helene Bertrand, M.D., CCFP, clinical instructor, Department of Family Practice, School
Kenneth Dean Reeves, M.D.,FAAPM&R. Clinical Assistant/Associate Professor,
M
AN
U
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1986-2015, University of Kansas.
Mr. Cameron J Bennett, Musculoskeletal Physiotherapist, MPhty (MSK), BSc.Private
Practice, British Columbia.
Simon Bicknell, M.D., FRCPC, Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Radiology,
TE
D
University of British Columbia.
An-Lin Cheng, Ph.D. (Statistics), Associate Professor, University of Missouri- Kansas
City. School of Nursing and Health Studies.
EP
Location of Study
Dr. Bertrand’s Private Office: 1940 Lonsdale Avenue, Suite 220, North Vancouver,
AC
C
British Columbia, Canada, V7M 2K2.
Acknowledgment of Any Presentation of This Material
Abstract submitted as a poster in the annual meeting of American Congress of
Rehabilitation Medicine and presented as a poster at the Annual meeting of the
Canadian Pain Association May 21-22, 2015
Acknowledgment of Financial Support
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
This research was supported with funds from WorkSafe BC (Worker's Compensation
Board of British Columbia, RS2010-OG07). The funding source has no involvement in
Other Acknowledgments
RI
PT
conduct of the research or preparation of the article.
Janusz Kaczorowski, Ph.D., Professor & Research Director at Université de Montréal,
development)
SC
Adjunct Professor, Department of Family Medicine, McGill University. (Early project
Brad Fullerton, M.D, FAAPM&R, Austin, Texas (Assistance with implementation of the
M
AN
U
Ultrasound Shoulder Pathology Rating Scale)
Audrey Scherbler, Pharm. D. (Preparation, randomization and numbering of the
solutions used in the study)
David Rabago, M.D. Assistant Professor, Associate Research Director, University of
(Editorial review)
TE
D
Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Family Medicine.
Corresponding Author Information
EP
K. Dean Reeves M.D., FAAPM&R, 4740 El Monte, Roeland Park, Kansas, 66205.
Office Phone: (913) 362-1600 Mobile Phone: (913) 963-7750
AC
C
Email: [email protected]
University of British Columbia Human Subject Committee Protocol ID: H09-00911
Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT01402011
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
Dextrose Prolotherapy versus Control Injections in Painful Rotator Cuff
2
Tendinopathy
RI
PT
ABSTRACT
3
Objective: To compare the effect of dextrose prolotherapy on pain levels and
5
degenerative changes in painful rotator cuff tendinopathy against two potentially active
6
control injection procedures.
7
Design: Randomized controlled trial, blinded to participants and evaluators.
8
Setting: Outpatient pain medicine practice.
9
Participants: Chronic shoulder pain, examination findings of rotator cuff tendinopathy,
M
AN
U
SC
4
and ultrasound-confirmed supraspinatus tendinosis/tear.
11
Interventions: Three monthly injections either onto painful entheses with dextrose
12
(Enth-Dex), onto entheses with saline (Enth-Sal), or above entheses with saline.
13
(Superfic-Sal). All solutions included 0.1% lidocaine. All participants received concurrent
14
programmed physical therapy.
15
Main Outcome Measures: Primary: Participants achieving an improvement in maximal
16
current shoulder pain ≥ 2.8 or not. (Twice the minimal clinically important difference for
17
(Visual Analog Scale) VAS pain. Secondary: Improvement in the Ultrasound Pathology
18
Rating Scale (USPRS) and a 0-10 satisfaction score (10 = completely satisfied).
19
Results: The 73 participants had moderate to severe shoulder pain (7.0±2.0) for
20
7.6±9.6 years. There were no baseline differences between groups. Blinding was
21
effective. At 9 month follow-up 59 percent of Enth-Dex participants maintained ≥ 2.8
22
improvement in pain compared to Enth-Saline (37%;p=.088) and Superfic-Saline
AC
C
EP
TE
D
10
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(27%;p=.017). Enth-Dex participants’ satisfaction was 6.7±3.2 compared to Enth-Saline
24
(4.7±4.1;p=.079) and Superfic-Saline (3.9±3.1;p=.003). USPRS findings were not
25
different between groups (p = .734).
26
Conclusions: In participants with painful rotator cuff tendinopathy who receive physical
27
therapy, injection of hypertonic dextrose on painful entheses resulted in superior long
28
term pain improvement and patient satisfaction compared with blinded saline injection
29
over painful entheses, with intermediate results for entheses injection with saline. These
30
differences could not be attributed to a regenerative effect. Dextrose prolotherapy may
31
improve upon standard care of painful rotator cuff tendinopathy for certain patients.
32
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
23
Key words: Dextrose; prolotherapy; rotator cuff; tendinopathy; tendinitis.
34
Abbreviations:
35
ANOVA: Analysis of Variance
36
DASH: Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand
37
NRS: Numerical Rating Scale (0-10)
38
USPRS: Ultrasound Shoulder Pathology Rating Scale
39
VAS: Visual Analog Scale (0-10)
40
PESS: Physical Examination of Shoulder Scale
42
EP
AC
C
41
TE
D
33
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Rotator cuff tendinopathy (RoCT) is common, affecting one in five shoulders,1 and very
44
costly: Work Safe BC statistics for 2004 to 2008 show 464 to 653 cases of rotator cuff
45
injury per year, each case costing an average of $24,300.2 It impacts the lives of
46
manual workers, athletes and the elderly, who are more often affected, because
47
shoulder pain and weakness interfere with work tolerance, sport, sleep and everyday
48
self-care.3
49
Treatments to reduce pain and improve function have included rest, pain medication,
50
physiotherapy, corticosteroid injections, and surgery.4,5 Unfortunately, after three years,
51
54% of all RoCT patients are still suffering.6,7 Injection of painful entheses with
52
hypertonic dextrose (dextrose prolotherapy) has demonstrated clinical benefit8-11 and
53
improvement in ultrasound-based tendinopathy findings in several tendinopathies,12-14
54
but has not been studied in RoCT. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect
55
of dextrose prolotherapy against two potentially active control injection procedures in
56
subjects who were receiving physical therapy. We hypothesized that dextrose
57
prolotherapy would reduce pain significantly more than superficial injection over
58
entheses and improve degenerative findings on ultrasound. Enthesis injection with
59
saline was expected to have intermediate benefit due to potential therapeutic effects
60
from microbleeding or cell membrane rupture with initiation of the inflammatory
61
cascade.
SC
M
AN
U
TE
D
EP
AC
C
62
RI
PT
43
METHODS
63
This randomized controlled trial compared dextrose prolotherapy (entheses dextrose
64
injection) to one of two control injections, entheses saline injection without dextrose or
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
superficial saline injection. This study was conducted in an outpatient pain practice and
66
was approved by the Human Subject Committee of the University of British Columbia.
67
Adults 19 to 75 years old from the greater Vancouver area with shoulder pain more than
68
3 months were examined using the Physical Examination of Shoulder Scale (PESS),
69
which has been utilized to monitor interval changes in rotator cuff status in wheelchair
70
athletes.15 Physical examination qualifiers included either a positive Neer, positive
71
Hawkins-Kennedy or positive painful arc testing. Supraspinatus pathology was required
72
in the form of either non-calcific or calcific tendinosis, partial tear or full thickness tear as
73
noted on high resolution ultrasound scanning. Exclusion criteria included allergy to
74
local anesthetic, unwillingness to avoid anti-inflammatories for 3 days before and 2
75
weeks after treatments, corticosteroid injection within the last 8 weeks, passive shoulder
76
abduction less than 100 degrees or external rotation less than 25 degrees, a rotator cuff
77
calcification diameter greater than 0.8 cm on plain film or ultrasound, grade II-IV
78
(Kellgren-Lawrence Classification) osteoarthritis, type III acromion, supraspinatus tear
79
width > 1.2 cm, or comorbidity severe enough to affect full participation.
SC
M
AN
U
TE
D
EP
80
RI
PT
65
Randomization to one of three active treatment groups
82
Following the first ultrasound examination, if potential treatment participants met all
83
eligibility criteria, they were randomly assigned by the pharmacist to one of three
84
injection groups using a random number generator in blocks of 3.
85
1. Injection onto painful entheses with 25%dextrose/0.1% lidocaine/saline (Enth-Dex;
86
described to participants as dextrose prolotherapy).
AC
C
81
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2. Injection onto painful enthesis with 0.1% lidocaine/saline (Enth-Saline; described to
88
participants as modified prolotherapy )
89
3. Injection superficial to painful entheses at ½ to 1 cm depth with 0.1% lidocaine/saline
90
(Superfic-Saline; described to participants as sham prolotherapy).
RI
PT
87
91
Physical Therapy:
93
Each participant was evaluated prior to receiving their first injection and received two
94
physical therapy sessions after each injection session. Treatments are outlined in table
95
one. The emphasis in teaching included helping each participant identify the correct
96
working pressure for their resistance exercises, understand the importance of correct
97
exercise posture, pacing, rest intervals and appropriate progressions, and give attention
98
to proper scapular position (Table 1). Each participant was encouraged to maintain their
99
exercise program three times a week through the point of 3 month follow-up. Physical
101
M
AN
U
TE
D
100
SC
92
therapy adherence was assessed by attendance record.
Blinded preparation of solutions and injection:
103
Solutions were prepared off-site by the unblinded pharmacist. Solutions were identical
104
in appearance and viscosity and masking of the numbered bottles was not performed.
105
The evaluator, ultrasonographer and participants were blinded to both group
106
assignment and solution type. The injector was blinded to solution type for enthesis
107
injection groups, but was alerted to which group was to be injected superficially by a
108
letter placed on the labels of the bottles prepared by the pharmacist. To improve the
AC
C
EP
102
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
blinding of participants between superficial technique and deep technique, anesthetic
110
blebs were not placed over injection sites, and when superficial injections were given,
111
the injector applied firm pressure with a finger 1 cm to each side of the injection point
112
without pressing in the injection site and needle entries were vertical to skin surface and
113
limited to 0.5 to 1.0 cm depth to avoid enthesis contact.
114
RI
PT
109
Injection interval and locations
116
Injections were performed at 0, 1 and 2 months after initiation of active treatment. The
117
needle used was 27 gauge (G) 37 mm, with exception of the long head of the biceps
118
origin and the anterior and posterior inferior glenohumeral ligament, or unless the
119
participant was muscular or obese, in which case a 27G, 51 mm needle was used in
120
selected areas. The supraspinatus, infraspinatus and teres minor insertions, as well as
121
insertions on the coracoid process, were injected with the shoulder in neutral rotation
122
(Figure 1). Biceps long head, subscapularis insertion and inferior glenohumeral ligament
123
were injected with the shoulder in various degrees of external rotation and
124
abduction/adduction (Figure 2). Origins of the teres minor, teres major and the posterior
125
inferior glenohumeral ligament were injected posteriorly (Figure 3). Participants received
126
injections of 1 mL of solution at each primary injection site. Other tender areas along the
127
enthesis and adjacent to the primary site were injected at 1 cm intervals, each with 0.5
128
mL of solution.
129
130
Post Injection Precautions:
131
Pre-and Post-injection participants were advised to use acetaminophen, tramadol, or
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
115
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
acetaminophen with codeine for discomfort. Participants were discouraged from using
133
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and from starting new therapies for rotator cuff
134
tendinopathy during the study period. They were advised not to do activities that were
135
painful and to wait for 10 days before resuming physical therapy sessions.
RI
PT
132
136
Outcome measures
138
Baseline demographics, previous treatment methods, examination findings, ultrasound
139
findings, USPRS ratings and number of physical therapy sessions received were
140
tabulated by group to characterize the sample and to evaluate as covariates for
141
statistical analysis. (Table 2).
142
M
AN
U
SC
137
The primary outcome measure was achieving an improvement in maximal current
144
shoulder pain ≥ 2.8 or not, which is twice the minimal clinically important difference
145
(MCID) for VAS change in rotator cuff tendinopathy.16 Participants marked shoulder
146
pain at 0 and 3 months on a form provided by a blinded evaluator prior to being seen by
147
the injector. At 9 months a final 0-10 shoulder pain rating was obtained by phone by a
148
blinded evaluator with the same directions (given verbally) as used for the 0-10 VAS.
149
Because this value was obtained verbally without an opportunity to choose values other
150
than whole numbers it would be a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS).
151
Two secondary long term outcome measures were obtained. One was a satisfaction
152
measure obtained at 9 months from all participants by phone (“On a 0-10 scale rate how
153
satisfied you are with your treatment outcome with 0 = Not satisfied at all and 10 =
AC
C
EP
TE
D
143
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Completely satisfied”).The second was the Ultrasound Shoulder Pathology Rating Scale
155
(USPRS; Figure 4).15 This rating scale for interval evaluation of rotator cuff tendinopathy
156
was developed for use with wheelchair athletes, and was performed prior to treatment,
157
and at least 6 months after the last injection session, depending on availability of the
158
patient and ultrasonographer. The evaluator was blinded to group assignment.
RI
PT
154
159
Blinding of participants was assessed at 3 months by asking participants the following
161
written question: “Do you think the treatment you received was true prolotherapy?” They
162
then selected either “Yes”, “No, modified prolotherapy”, “No, sham prolotherapy”, or “I
163
don’t know”.
164
165
Statistical analysis:
166
Using an estimated effect size of 0.81, a sample size of 25 in each group was
167
determined to provide 80% power to detect a difference in mean pain scores at a
168
significance level of .05.
169
In order to identify significant covariants for the pain measure, a Repeated Measures
170
ANCOVA for pain scale, followed by post hoc Bonferroni correction for three groups,
171
was applied to compare the groups for magnitude of change in 0-10 pain score between
172
0 to 3 months and 0 to 9 months. A Pearson Chi-Square Analysis was utilized to
173
determine significant differences between groups in the number of participants who
174
achieved a ≥ 2.8 improvement in pain and to evaluate the effectiveness of the
175
participant blinding procedure while accounting for any significant covariates in the
176
analysis.
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
160
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
A repeated measures ANCOVA was applied for magnitude of change in ultrasound
178
ratings between entry and follow-up ultrasound and an ANCOVA for 0-10 satisfaction
179
levels at 9 months. The statistical program utilized was PASW 18 (Predictive Analytics
180
Software 18.0.0, IBM).
RI
PT
177
181
RESULTS
183
Enrollment and Baseline Characteristics: Patient recruitment began in October 2010,
184
and data collection was completed in July of 2013. Two hundred and thirty-seven
185
people were screened for eligibility (Figure 5). Of these, 135 were ineligible by history,
186
examination or radiographic findings and 25 by ultrasound findings. Seventy seven were
187
randomized. Seventy three tolerated the first injection and seventy two completed all
188
treatments and provided 9 month follow-up data. Baseline demographic, prior shoulder
189
treatments received, examination findings, and ultrasound pathology were similar, as
190
was the number of physical therapy sessions received during the study (Table 2). There
191
were no significant covariates in the repeated measures ANCOVA. Overall, most of the
192
participants (63%) were men, with a mean age of 51, minimum pain duration of 5
193
months, and mean pain duration of more than 7 years.
M
AN
U
TE
D
EP
AC
C
194
SC
182
195
Success of Injection Group Blinding:
196
Three months after starting injection treatment, when participants were asked if they
197
knew which group they were in, only 21 of 73 participants were confident enough of
198
their injection group to make a guess (Table 3) and only 7 of these were correct. There
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
199
was no significant difference between groups for number of correct guesses (p = .551),
200
suggesting that participant blinding was effective.
201
Follow-up Pain, Ultrasound and Satisfaction Data:
203
At nine months, the Enth-Dex group maintained a 2.9 point improvement in pain in
204
comparison with 1.8 points for the Enth-Saline group and 1.3 points for the Superfic-
205
Saline group (Table 4). The percent of participants reaching and maintaining a clinically
206
significant improvement of 2.8 or more in pain was significantly different between
207
groups (Table 4; p= .046). The Enth-Dex group significantly out-performed the Superfic-
208
Saline group (16[59%] vs 7[27%]; p=.017). The difference between the Enth-Dex group
209
and the intermediate-performing Enth-Saline group did not reach clinical significance.
210
(16[59%] vs 7[37%];p=.088).
TE
D
211
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
202
Satisfaction was significantly different between groups at long term follow-up (p = .017).
213
Levene statistic results ruled out a lack of homogeneity in variance between groups.
214
Group-by-group analysis revealed that the satisfaction of the Enth-Dex group was
215
significantly more than that of the Superfic-Saline group (6.7±3.2 vs
216
3.9±3.1;p=.003). Satisfaction differences between the Enth-Dex group and Enth-Saline
217
group did not reach significance. (6.7±3.2 vs 4.7±4.1;p=.079).
AC
C
218
EP
212
219
Three participants did not follow through with repeat ultrasound examination after
220
treatment, leaving 70 out of 73 (96%) for whom both before and after treatment ratings
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
221
were available (Table 4). Although each group showed some improvement (a decline) in
222
the USPRS, there was no between-group difference (p = .734).
223
One subject in the Enth-Saline group developed adhesive capsulitis, with resolution
225
after therapy provision but was removed from the study. No other side effects or
226
adverse events were noted other than discomfort with injection, and minor
227
post-injection soreness.
228
DISCUSSION
M
AN
U
229
SC
RI
PT
224
This RCT of participants with symptomatic ultrasound-confirmed rotator cuff
231
tendinopathy receiving physical therapy found that dextrose prolotherapy significantly
232
improved the number of participants who achieved a clinically-important improvement
233
compared to superficial saline injection above painful entheses, with intermediate
234
results for saline injection of entheses, confirming the primary hypothesis. At 9 months
235
59% of the enth-dex group maintained a 2.8 or more improvement in pain compared to
236
27% of the superfic-saline group. Participant satisfaction was significantly more in the
237
Enth-Dex group 6.7±3.2 vs 3.9±3.1 than in the Superfic-Saline group. However, there
238
were no differences of significance either within groups or between groups for changes
239
over time in degenerative findings on systemic interval ultrasound grading of rotator cuff
240
tendinopathy. The intermediate performance of enthesis injection with saline is
241
potentially consistent with a therapeutic effect from the direct needling of entheses. .
AC
C
EP
TE
D
230
242
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
These results add to the body of randomized and controlled studies indicating a
244
therapeutic benefit of dextrose prolotherapy in tendinopathy. In Osgood Schlatter
245
Disease, where patellar tendinopathy is the most common finding on ultrasound,
246
injection of 12.5% dextrose and was an effective treatment, outperforming injection of
247
saline and usual care exercise.8 Dextrose injection was significantly more effective than
248
a randomized “wait and see” control group in the treatment of lateral epicondylosis.9 In
249
Achilles tendinopathy, peritendinous dextrose injection plus eccentric lengthening
250
exercises was more effective than eccentric lengthening exercises alone.17 Also
251
notable, albeit not blinded, was a moderately large study of 72 consecutive elite-level
252
soccer and rugby athletes with chronic career-altering tendinopathy-associated pubalgia
253
in which hypertonic dextrose injection resulted in a 90% rate of pain-free sport within a
254
mean of 3 months.11 Despite these favorable results, the large number of
255
tendinopathies and their potential for variable responsiveness to treatments need to be
256
kept in mind. Two recent reviews of injection techniques for tendinopathy, including
257
steroid injection, sclerosing agents, aprotinin, prolotherapy, and platelet rich plasma
258
noted that injection treatments other than steroid injection may be of benefit for long-
259
term treatment, but the quantity and quality of literature is insufficient for definitive
260
recommendations.18,19
SC
M
AN
U
TE
D
EP
AC
C
261
RI
PT
243
262
The mechanism of action of dextrose in the current study is not clear. A traditional view
263
is that hypertonic dextrose initiates a brief inflammatory cascade stimulating native
264
healing and subsequent tissue growth, and that clinical improvement follows restoration
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
of tissue integrity.20 However, elevation of pericellular dextrose levels as little as 0.5
266
stimulates production of multiple profibroblastic cytokines.21,22 Even transport of glucose
267
into human cells by GLUT1, the chief glucose transporter protein, is coupled with
268
cytokine elevations.21 Randomized and controlled animal studies using injection of non-
269
inflammatory 10% dextrose have confirmed an increase in organized connective tissue
270
width, thickening of collagen bundles, and an increase in energy absorption and of load
271
bearing ability before rupture in response to hypertonic dextrose injection.23,24 Human
272
ultrasound data suggest that hypertonic dextrose injection is followed by regeneration in
273
ligamentous tissue,13,14 and machine measurement of consecutive cases of ACL laxity
274
has suggested a reduction in measurable laxity with intraarticular dextrose injection. 25
275
However, the absence of any demonstrable interval changes on USPRS in this present
276
study does not support regeneration as the source of clinical benefit. Dextrose may also
277
have a direct pain-modulating effect. Two recent RCTs, one with a back pain model26
278
and one with a capsaicin pain model 27 have suggested that dextrose and a related
279
alcohol (mannitol) have an analgesic effect. Pain relief in a capsaicin-induced pain
280
model may be indicative of either downregulation of the TRPV1 receptor, a key
281
receptor in maintenance of a chronic pain state, or effects on downstream mediators of
282
TRPV1 activation..
283
Study limitations and strengths
284
Study limitations include offering physical therapy. Physical therapy is an active
285
treatment and may account for much of the benefit at short term follow-up. However, it
286
is customary and usual to prescribe physical therapy for rotator cuff tendinopathy, all
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
265
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
patients received the same amount of therapy, and significant outcome differences were
288
seen between injection groups. Failure to utilize Disability of Arm Shoulder and Hand
289
scoring in this study resulted in an inability to confirm that improvement in pain was
290
accompanied by a proportional functional improvement. Administrative limitations
291
resulted in the substitution of the NRS 0-10 pain scale for the VAS 0-10 pain scale at 9
292
months. However, the two scales are comparable,28 and verbal NRS pain levels are
293
rated higher, which would have erred on the side of underestimating the amount of pain
294
improvement (reduction in pain on a 0-10 scale) from 0 to 9 months.29 Our pain question
295
asked about the “current worst pain”, which differs from our stated reference on MCID
296
determination in rotator cuff tendinopathy, which asked about “current overall pain”.16
297
The effect of this difference in wording is uncertain, although the same question was
298
asked of all participants.
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
287
TE
D
299
Strengths of this study include assessment of a difficult, often refractory,
301
musculoskeletal condition with an innovative therapy in a randomized controlled fashion
302
with practical patient-oriented outcomes, complete patient follow-up data, and
303
ultrasound assessment for potential disease modification. These participants typically
304
had long term chronic shoulder pain and had failed multiple previous treatments.
305
Baseline evaluations included tabulation of physical findings and ultrasound findings of
306
tendinopathy to provide high specificity for diagnosis of rotator cuff tendinopathy. The
307
questionnaire utilized for blinding analysis demonstrated that very few subjects were
308
confident of their group assignment and were usually wrong when they chose, indicating
AC
C
EP
300
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
309
that it is possible to successfully blind superficial and deep injections.
310
CONCLUSIONS
312
Among participants with painful rotator cuff tendinopathy, physical therapy plus dextrose
313
prolotherapy performed by a trained operator resulted in safe, significant and sustained
314
improvements in pain and improved patient satisfaction compared to physical therapy
315
plus superficial saline injections. A regenerative effect was not confirmed by internal
316
ultrasonography in this study. Prolotherapy may provide an effective and welcome
317
addition to the management of patients with painful rotator cuff tendinopathy. Definitive
318
determination of the clinical utility of dextrose prolotherapy will require additional, larger
319
clinical trials with more complete functional assessment tools, supplemented by further
320
basic science to determine mechanism of action and baseline characteristics of
321
responders.
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
311
322
REFERENCES
1.
rotator cuff tear in the general population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg.
325
2010;19(1):116-120.
326
327
2.
330
Work Safe BC Statistical Services Department. www.worksafebc.com. Accessed
March 1, 2009.
328
329
Yamamoto A, Takagishi K, Osawa T, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of a
AC
C
324
EP
323
3.
Burbank KM, Stevenson JH, Czarnecki GR, Dorfman J. Chronic shoulder pain:
part I. Evaluation and diagnosis. Am Fam Physician. 2008;77(4):453-460.
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4.
recommendations for treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2005;72(5):811-818.
332
333
5.
Bishay V, Gallo RA. The evaluation and treatment of rotator cuff pathology. Prim
Care. 2013;40(4):889-910, viii.
334
335
Wilson JJ, Best TM. Common overuse tendon problems: a review and
6.
RI
PT
331
Bokor D, Hawkins R, Gh H, RL A, MS S. Results of non-operative management
of full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff. . Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993;294:103-
337
110.
7.
orthopedic Relat Res 1995;321:178-188.
339
340
Hawkins RH, Dunlop R. Nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff tears. Clinical
8.
M
AN
U
338
SC
336
Topol GA, Podesta LA, Reeves KD, Raya MF, Fullerton BD, Yeh HW.
341
Hyperosmolar dextrose injection for recalcitrant Osgood-Schlatter disease.
342
Pediatrics. 2011;128(5):e1121-1128.
9.
Rabago D, Lee KS, Ryan M, et al. Hypertonic dextrose and morrhuate sodium
TE
D
343
injections (prolotherapy) for lateral epicondylosis (tennis elbow): results of a
345
single-blind, pilot-level, randomized controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil.
346
2013;92(7):587-596.
10.
prolotherapy for lateral epicondylosis: a pilot study. Clin J Sport Med.
348
2008;18(3):248-254.
349
350
351
352
Scarpone M, Rabago DP, Zgierska A, Arbogast G, Snell E. The efficacy of
AC
C
347
EP
344
11.
Topol GA, Reeves KD. Regenerative injection of elite athletes with career-
altering chronic groin pain who fail conservative treatment: a consecutive case
series. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;87(11):890-902.
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
353
12.
Maxwell NJ, Ryan MB, Taunton JE, Gillies JH, Wong AD. Sonographically
guided intratendinous injection of hyperosmolar dextrose to treat chronic
355
tendinosis of the Achilles tendon: a pilot study. Am J Roentgenol.
356
2007;189(4):W215-220.
357
13.
RI
PT
354
Ryan M, Wong A, Taunton J. Favorable outcomes after sonographically guided
intratendinous injection of hyperosmolar dextrose for chronic insertional and
359
midportion Achilles tendinosis. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(4):1047-1053.
360
14.
SC
358
Ryan M, Wong A, Rabago D, Lee K, Taunton J. Ultrasound-guided injections of
hyperosmolar dextrose for overuse patellar tendinopathy: a pilot study. Br J
362
Sports Med. 2011;45(12):972-977.
363
15.
M
AN
U
361
Brose SW, Boninger ML, Fullerton BD, et al. Shoulder ultrasound abnormalities,
physical examination findings, and pain in manual wheelchair users with spinal
365
cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(11):2086-2093.
366
16.
TE
D
364
Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Porucznik CA, Powell AP. Minimal clinically important
differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual
368
analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease. J
369
Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):927-932.
371
372
17.
Yelland MJ, Sweeting KR, Lyftogt JA, Ng SK, Scuffham PA, Evans KA.
AC
C
370
EP
367
Prolotherapy injections and eccentric loading exercises for painful Achilles
tendinosis: a randomised trial. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45(5):421-428.
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
373
18.
Coombes BK, Bisset L, Vicenzino B. Efficacy and safety of corticosteroid
374
injections and other injections for management of tendinopathy: a systematic
375
review of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2010;20(376(9754)):1751-1767.
19.
evidence? Clin Sports Med. 2012;31(2):329-350.
377
378
Skjong CC, Meininger AK, Ho SS. Tendinopathy treatment: where is the
20.
RI
PT
376
Reeves KD, Topol GA, Fullerton BD. Evidence-based regenerative injection
therapy (prolotherapy) in sports medicine. In: Seidelberg PH, Beutler PL, eds.
380
The Sports Medicine Resource Manual. Philadelphia: Saunders (Elsevier);
381
2008:611-619.
22.
Am J Nephrol. 2013;38(1):39-49
Pradhan L, Cai X, Wu S, et al. Gene expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines
and neuropeptides in diabetic wound healing. J Surg Res 2011;167(2):336-342.
385
386
Heilig CW, Deb DK, Abdul A, et al. GLUT1 regulation of the pro-sclerotic
mediators of diabetic nephropathy
383
384
M
AN
U
21.
23.
TE
D
382
SC
379
Yoshii Y, Zhao C, Schmelzer JD, Low PA, An KN, Amadio PC. Effects of multiple
injections of hypertonic dextrose in the rabbit carpal tunnel: a potential model of
388
carpal tunnel syndrome development. Hand (N Y). 2014;9(1):52-57.
24.
hypertonic dextrose injection on connective tissue and nerve conduction through
390
the rabbit carpal tunnel. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(2):333-339.
391
392
393
394
Yoshii Y, Zhao C, Schmelzer JD, Low PA, An KN, Amadio PC. The effects of
AC
C
389
EP
387
25.
Reeves KD, Hassanein K. Long term effects of dextrose prolotherapy for anterior
cruciate ligament laxity: A prospective and consecutive patient study. Altern Ther
Health Med. 2003;9(3):58-62.
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
395
26.
Smigel L, Reeves KD, Lyftogt J, Rabago D. Analgesic Effect of Caudal 5%
396
Dextrose in Water in Chronic Low Back Pain (Abs) Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
397
2015;In Press
27.
Bertrand H, Kyriazis M, Reeves KD, Lyftogt J, Rabago D. Topical Mannitol
RI
PT
398
399
Reduces Capsaicin-induced Pain: Results of a Pilot Level, Double-Blind
400
Randomized Controlled Trial. PM&R. 2015;In Press PMID 25978942.
28.
Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, et al. Studies comparing Numerical
SC
401
Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for
403
assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain
404
Symptom Manage. 2011;41(6):1073-1093.
405
29.
M
AN
U
402
Holdgate A, Asha S, Craig J, Thompson J. Comparison of a verbal numeric
rating scale with the visual analogue scale for the measurement of acute pain.
407
Emerg Med. 2003;15(5-6):441-446.
TE
D
406
Figure Titles and Legends
408
Figure One Title: Structures Injected in Neutral Rotation and Typical Depth of Injection
410
Figure One Legend:
411
(S)Supraspinatus insertion: 1 to 3 ml on the anterior superior part of the greater
412
tuberosity, generally tender to palpation over about 2-3 cm in height and .5 cm in width.
413
(I) Infraspinatus insertion: 1 to 3 ml immediately posterior to the superior portion of the
414
supraspinatus tendon, in line with the spine of the scapula on the greater tuberosity.
415
(T) Teres minor insertion: 1 to 3 ml on the posterior superior surface of the greater
416
tuberosity.
AC
C
EP
409
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(C) Coracoid process: 1 ml on the bony prominence under the clavicle, medial to the
418
head of the humerus. The coracoid is contacted at its most shallow location.
419
Figure Two Title:Structures Injected in Variable External Rotation and Abduction and
420
Typical Depth of Injection
421
Figure TwoLegend:
422
(B)Biceps long head: 1 ml immediately medial to the acromioclavicular joint and
423
posterior to the clavicle, with the arm in slight external rotation. Needle insertion is
424
vertical with a 15 degree anterior tilt until bone is reached.
425
(S) Subscapularis insertion: 1 to 3 ml (depending on surface of tender area) on the
426
lesser tuberosity of the humerus, posterior to the long tendon of the biceps. With the
427
arm in full external rotation and adduction needle insertion is .5 cm lateral to the
428
coracoid process until it reaches the humerus.
429
(I) Inferior glenohumeral ligament: 3 ml with the arm externally rotated and abducted 90°
430
as tolerated; the inferior part of the glenohumeral joint is palpated and injected. Solution
431
is injected on the scapular and humeral insertions of the ligament.
432
Figure Three Title: Structures Injected Posteriorly
433
Figure Three Legend:
434
(Tma) Teres major and (Tmi) Teres minor: 1 to 3 ml (depending on surface of tender
435
area with arm fully adducted and hand on opposite shoulder, inject edge of scapula only
436
where tender to avoid risk of pneumothorax. Posterior inferior glenohumeral ligament
437
(P): 1 ml with the shoulder -fully adducted, the inferior part of the glenohumeral joint is
438
palpated and injected.
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
417
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure FourTitle: Ultrasound Pathology Rating Scale (USPRS) (Range 0-20)
440
Figure Four Legend: Descriptions of intermediate levels of pathology are found in the
441
original source. 15
442
Figure Five Title: Enrollment of Participants and Study Conduct
443
Figure Five Legend: All 73 participants provided long term data for analysis and all
444
participants completed treatment except for one participant in the Enth-Saline group
445
who developed adhesive capsulitis after session one.
446
Table One Title: Physical Therapy Protocol
447
Table One Legend:
448
* The first session of therapy was conducted prior to initiation of injection treatment.
449
†
450
Table Two Title: Baseline Comparison of Treatment Groups
451
Table Two Legend:
452
* P values obtained from One Way ANOVA for numeric and Pearson chi square for non-
453
numeric variables.
454
† Retired and not working were not distinguished.
455
‡ Percentage does not sum to 100 due to participants varied use of individual therapies.
456
Table Three Title: Success of Blinding the Method of Injection
457
Table Three Legend:
458
* The question presented was :Do you think the treatment you received was true
459
prolotherapy? Ο Yes Ο No, modified prolotherapy Ο No, sham treatment Ο Don’t
460
know
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
439
AC
C
EP
TE
D
After each injection session, two physical therapy sessions were received.
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
† There was no significant difference between groups for number of correct guesses (P
462
= .551). The correct responses for each group are indicated in bold.
463
‡ This is the group for which blinding was likely to be more difficult. The combination of
464
pressure around injection site, and not using local anesthetic appears to have been
465
successful with 77% uncertain of which group they were in and only 11.5% correct in
466
their guess.
467
Table Four Title: Change in VAS for Pain, DASH and PESS during Control and Short
468
Term Active Treatment Periods.
469
Table Four Legend:
470
* Defined as equal to or more than twice the MCID (1.4) for a change in 0-10 NRS pain
471
scale.(≥2.8). A Pearson Chi-Square Analysis was utilized for intragroup analysis.
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
461
† Enth-Dex significantly out-performed Superfic-Saline (p=.017).The difference
473
between the Enth-Dex group and the intermediate-performing Enth-Saline
474
did not reach clinical significance. (p=.088).)
TE
D
472
‡ A decrease in the UPRPS represents an improvement. No significant differences
476
between groups were noted. (p = .734)
478
479
480
AC
C
477
EP
475
Dextrose Prolotherapy in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy Page 22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Session
1*
Objective
Survey: Prior treatment, location and severity of shoulder pain, and
RI
PT
provocative maneuvers and activities.
Goals: Prior treatment and current treatment goals discussed.
2-7†
Stretching: Gentle stretches appropriate to range restrictions.
SC
General exercise teaching: Correct working pressure for resistance
M
AN
U
exercises, correct posture/scapula position, pacing, rest intervals and
appropriate progressions.
Isometric exercises for cuff and deltoid: (Thera-Band® yellow to
blue). Minimal or no pain as only acceptable symptoms.
TE
D
Active exercise progression with attention to arm position and
assessment of simple loading patterns: Rowing, curling, shrug,
shoulder forward press and front raise, neutral cuff exercises, scapular
EP
strengthening exercises, former provocative maneuvers, body weight
AC
C
exercises including dips, pushups and plank style exercises.
Ice massage: Normally used around subacromial region to minimize
symptoms after exercise.
Review and encouragement: To maintain exercise program three times
a week.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
* The first session of therapy was conducted prior to initiation of injection
treatment.
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
After each injection session, two physical therapy sessions were received.
AC
C
†
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Characteristic
#27
Demographics
Superfic-
Saline
Saline
P
RI
PT
Enth-Dex
Enth-
#20
#27
Value*
11 (41%)
6 (32%)
10 (38%)
.812
Age years, mean (SD)
53.8±13.5
51.1±9.2
49.0±11.9
.333
SC
Female, n (%)
Pain Duration months mean (SD)
61±81
131±155
101±115
.125
VAS pain, mean (SD)
7.7±1.7
8.1±1.4
7.6±1.8
.573
M
AN
U
Currently Working† n, (%)
21(78%)
18(90%)
24(92%)
.479
16(59%)
13(65%)
17(65%)
.878
4(15%)
0(0%)
1(4%)
.758
18(67%)
15(75%)
15(58%)
.459
10(37%)
6(30%)
8(31%)
.844
3(11%)
1(5%)
1(4%)
.588
5(19%)
2(10%)
4(15%)
.721
0(0%)
5(25%)
9(35%)
.004
19(70%)
13(68%)
20(77%)
.791
Supraspinatus/Greater Tuberosity Pain
26(96%)
19(100%)
26(100%)
.430
AC Joint Pain
8(30%)
3(16%)
6(23%)
.551
Ext. Rot. Resistance Pain
18(67%)
11(58%)
18(69%)
.719
Int. Rot. Resistance Pain
13(49%)
7(37%)
11(42%)
.744
Supraspinatus Resistance Pain
24(89%)
16(84%)
23(89%)
.879
Painful Arc
22(75%)
18(95%)
25(96%)
.147
Neer Impingement Pain
23(85%)
18(95%)
25(96%)
.301
Hawkins-Kennedy Pain
26(96%)
19(100%)
24(92%)
.438
Dominant Side n, (%)
Current Smoker n, (%)
Prior Shoulder Treatments, n (%)‡
TE
D
Physical Therapy
Massage Therapy
Steroid Injection
Manipulation
EP
Acupuncture
Examination Findings, n (%)
AC
C
Biceps Long Head/Groove Pain
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
O’Briens Active Compression-AC
21(78%)
17(89%)
22(85%)
.564
O’Briens Active Compression-Labrum
15(56%)
10(53%)
13(50%)
.921
9 (33%)
.586
Baseline Ultrasound Pathology: Number Yes (%)
10 (37%)
6 (32%)
Calcific Tendinosis
12 (44%)
10 (53%)
14 (54%)
.763
Partial Supraspinatus Tear
12 (44%)
11 (58%)
13 (50%)
.668
Full Thickness Supraspinatus Tear
6 (22%)
2 (11%)
5 (19%)
.586
4.3±1.8
.858
5.0±1.8
.172
RI
PT
Non-Calcific Tendinosis
SC
Baseline Ultrasound Pathology Rating
USPRS, mean (SD)
4.0±1.8
4.3±1.8
Number of Sessions Received, mean (SD)
M
AN
U
Physical Therapy During Active Study
5.1±1.5
4.3±1.6
* P values obtained from One Way ANOVA for numeric and Pearson chi square for non-
TE
D
numeric variables.
Retired and not working were not distinguished.
‡
Percentage does not sum to 100 due to participants varied use of individual therapies.
AC
C
EP
†
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
RI
PT
Table Three: Success of Blinding the Method of Injection
Participant’s Choice of Group*†
“Sham
“I Don’t
Prolotherapy”
Prolotherapy”
Know”
M
AN
U
(Enth-Saline)
(Superfic-Saline)
Enth-Dex (n=27)
2 (7%)
4(15%)
3 (11%)
18 (67%)
Enth-Saline (n=20)
2(10%)
2 (10%)
2(10%)
14 (70%)
3 (11.5)
0
3 (11.5%)
20 (77%)
Superfic-Saline (n=26) ‡
TE
D
(Enth-Dex)
EP
Assignment
Group
Actual
Prolotherapy”
“Modified
SC
“Dextrose
prolotherapy
AC
C
* The question presented was : Do you think the treatment you received was true prolotherapy? Ο Yes Ο No, modified
Ο No, sham treatment Ο Don’t know
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
† There was no significant difference between groups for number of correct guesses (p = .551). The correct responses for
RI
PT
each group are indicated in bold.
‡ This is the group for which blinding was likely to be more difficult. The combination of pressure around injection site,
SC
and not using local anesthetic appears to have been successful with 77% uncertain of which group they were in and only
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
11.5% correct in their guess.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table Four: Short Term Change in 0-10 Pain Scale and Long term Change in 0-10
Pain and Ultrasound Pathology Rating Scales
RI
PT
0-10 Pain Level
Number (%) With
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Reduction
Reduction
Baseline
(Improvement)
(Improvement)
Clinically
Enth-Dextrose
7.3 (.4)
Enth-Saline
6.9 (.5)
Superfic-Saline
6.9 (.4)
Improvement *
0-9 Months
M
AN
U
0-3 Months
SC
Significant
at 9 Months
3.0 (0.5)
2.9 (0.6)
16/27(59%) †
2.7 (0.7)
1.8 (0.7)
7/19(37%)
2.7 (.6)
1.3 (0.6)
7/26(27%)
TE
D
Ultrasound Pathology Rating Scale
Mean (SD) change
Baseline
at 9.4± 2.2
AC
C
EP
Mean (SD)
Months
Enth-Dextrose
4.0(.4)
-.3(.5)
Enth-Saline
4.3 (.5)
-.6(.5)
Superfic-Saline
4.3 (.4)
-6 (.4)
‡
* Defined as equal to or more than twice the MCID (1.4) for a change in 0-10 NRS pain scale.(≥2.8). A
Pearson Chi-Square Analysis was utilized for intragroup analysis.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
† Enth-Dex significantly out-performed Superfic-Saline (p=.017).The difference between the Enth-Dex
group and the intermediate-performing Enth-Saline did not reach clinical significance. (p=.088).)
‡ A decrease in the UPRPS represents an improvement. No significant differences between groups were
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
noted. (p = .734)
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Excluded (n=135)
● Declined to participate
(n=57)
● Examination exclusions (n=47)
● Radiographic exclusions (n=28)
● Comorbidity
(n=3)
More than 3 Months of shoulder pain. Ages
19-75 receive examination and X-ray
assessment (n=237)
RI
PT
(n=102)
Gather pre waiting period data and await ultrasound.
(n=102)
Excluded (n= 25)
● Width of tear > 1.2 cm
● No tendinopathy
● Soft tissue mass
SC
Screening/Initial Ultrasound at a mean of
3.6 month (0.8 to 9.2 Months)
M
AN
U
(n=77)
(n=18)
(n=6)
(n=1)
Gather post waiting period data. Randomly allocate to active treatment groups.
(n=27)
(n=24)
Enth-Dex
Enth-Saline
(n=26)
Superfic-Saline
(n=22)
EP
(n=29)
TE
D
Syringe misidentification at first injection
Two Enth-Saline participants receive dextrose
Blinding preserved but group sizes altered.
1st Session Not Tolerated
(n = 2)
AC
C
(n=27)
Injections 0, 1, 2 months
(n=27)
Discontinued (n=0)
Lost to follow-up (n=0)
(n=27)
Analyzed (n=27)
1st Session Not Tolerated
(n = 2)
(n=20)
Injections 0, 1, 2 months
(n=20)
Discontinued (n=1)
Lost to follow-up (n=0)
(n=26)
1st Session Not Tolerated
(n = 0)
(n=26)
Injections 0, 1, 2 months
(n=26)
Discontinued (n=0)
(n=26)
Lost to follow-up
(n=0)
(n=19)
(n=26)
Analyzed (n=19)
Analyzed (n=26)