Content uploaded by John Lyftogt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Lyftogt on Feb 01, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
110 Australasian Musculoskeletal Medicine
Abstract
In 2005, 127 painful knees (74), shoulders (33) and
lateral elbows (20) were treated with subcutaneous
prolotherapy. The mean length of symptoms was 23.9
months and mean length of treatment 7 weeks. The mean
initial visual analogue scale (VAS) of 6.7 reduced at mean
follow up of 21.4 months to VAS 0.76. Patient satisfaction
rates at follow up were 91.7%. The treatment was well
tolerated and safe.
Introduction
The most common presentation in a prolotherapy clinic
is chronic musculoskeletal pain with variable associated
degrees of dysfunction. All patients presenting had refrac-
tory musculoskeletal pain despite prior multiple treatment
modalities from a wide range of health professionals. They
had been thoroughly investigated.
The author had already experienced excellent results
from targeting tender/trigger points (TPs) with a hypertonic
glucose/lignocaine solution in the subcutaneous tissues of
Achilles tendinopathy.1
There is growing international appreciation that most
knee, shoulder, and elbow pain is due to tendinopathy/
tendinosis.2
It was hypothesized that the underlying pathology was
similar to Achilles tendinopathy and that the expected
response to subcutaneous prolotherapy would be compa-
rable. As with the Achilles tendon pilot study, all patients
were prospectively monitored with a Recovergram.3
The observed clinical outcome suggested a similar out-
come as for Achilles tendons and it was decided to sub-
stantiate the results with long-term follow up evaluation.
Methods and results
All patients presenting in 2005 were prospectively moni-
tored with a Recovergram.
The treatment protocol consisted of weekly treatments
where possible. All active TPs were identified by palpation
and injected subcutaneously with 0.5-1 ml of a Glucose
20%/Lignocaine 0.1% solution. The objective at the time of
each treatment was to achieve complete local anesthetic
pain relief. Treatments were continued until VAS 0-1 and/
or after consultation with the patient.
Patients were encouraged to assist the treatment by
resuming some form of modified activity on a daily basis,
emphasizing that a mild degree of pain during activity was
beneficial to repair. Clinical experience had already iden-
tified that rest does not enhance response to subcutane-
Subcutaneous prolotherapy treatment of
refractory knee, shoulder, and lateral
elbow pain
Dr John Lyftogt, Christchurch, New Zealand
ous prolotherapy. This advice is in line with Alfredson and
Ohberg’s4 protocol for Achilles tendinosis eccentric strength
exercises.
All individual Recovergrams were collated into a “Study
Recovergram” with recordings of gender, mean age, mean
length of symptoms, mean length of treatment, mean initial
VAS, mean length of follow up, mean follow up VAS, and
satisfaction rates.
Follow up was conducted by telephone through an
independent party.
No of knees treated 74
Males 42
Females 21
Mean age 43 (15-82)
Mean length of symptoms 33.7 months (1-204)
Mean length of treatment 6.8 weeks (2-15)
Mean initial VAS 6.3 (3-9)
Follow up 73% at mean 21 months
Mean follow up VAS 0.84
Satisfied with treatment 89%
November 2007 111
No of shoulders treated 33
Males 15
Females 18
Mean age 51.3 (19-81)
Mean length of symptoms 12.9 months (1-120)
Mean length of treatment 7.6 weeks (2-14)
Mean initial VAS 7.4 (5-9)
Follow up 75% at mean 24 months
Mean follow up VAS 1.8
Satisfied with treatment 88%
No of elbows treated 20
Males 11
Females 9
Mean age 39 (24-64)
Mean length of symptoms 6 (2-18)
Mean length of treatment 7.2 weeks (3-16)
Mean initial VAS 7.2
Follow up 77% at mean 19 months
Mean follow up VAS 0.4
Satisfied with treatment 100%
Discussion
The author’s clinical experience that response rates to
subcutaneous prolotherapy for refractive musculoskeletal
pain are consistent irrespective of location is worthy of
closer scrutiny.
This clinical study attempts to quantify the treatment
outcome of refractory knee, shoulder and lateral elbow
pain with respect to duration of treatment and duration of
effect. The results are not dissimilar to four years of
subcutaneous treatment of 169 Achilles tendinopathies as
separately reported in this journal.
The combined outcome statistics for the treatment of the
2005 knee, shoulder and lateral elbow pain showed a
mean length of symptoms of 23.9 months and a mean
treatment length of 7 weeks. The mean initial VAS 6.7
reduced at follow up of mean 21.4 months to VAS 0.76. The
combined satisfaction rate at follow up was 91.7%.
These statistics suggest a treatment effect with lasting
benefits.
In a clinical study of this kind it is important to consider the
effect of subcutaneous prolotherapy on individual patients
as statistics cannot do this. Of the 33 patients with shoulder
pain three (12%) did not respond and opted for surgery.
64% were completely pain free from the end of treatment
to follow up. The remaining 23% had a marked reduction
of pain at the end of treatment, which was sustained,
resulting in an overall satisfaction rate of 88%.
One 53-year-old female patient, the owner of a vineyard,
had two years of severe pain (VAS 9, including night pain).
She had prior treatment with two corticosteroid injections
and extensive physiotherapy. She required 14 weeks of
treatment to achieve VAS 0, the same at follow up. She
described the result at telephone follow up as “fantastic”.
At her first consultation large numbers of very active TPs
were identified over the left infraspinatus. Mechanical
stimulation of these TPs increased her associated hand
pain, previously diagnosed as carpal tunnel syndrome.
Numerous TPs were also identified in the mid and anterior
deltoid. The hand pain resolved with one treatment and the
night pain with two. She had full asymptomatic range of
movement (ROM) and normal strength at the end of the
treatment. An ultrasound (US) examination before the
treatment did not identify rotator cuff pathology, although
clinical examination showed a clear painful arc and mark-
edly reduced ROM.
The above statistics, although impressive, are unhelpful
in outlining the specifics of subcutaneous prolotherapy
when treating these incapacitating painful conditions as
each patient has a different pain pattern and a different
distribution of TPs. This is where the skill and “art” in
medicine define outcome.
In the traditional rationale for prolotherapy an irritant
solution (proliferant) is injected in or around painful weak
ligaments and/or entheses, creating an inflammatory re-
sponse. This inflammation is said to initiate a repair re-
sponse resulting in strengthening of the weakened liga-
ment and resolution of pain.5
The understanding of tissue repair has changed since
Hackett first published his theories on prolotherapy in
1956. Inflammation is now seen as a cellular mechanism
to render the tissues immunologically neutral and “effec-
tive repair” is determined by the balance between prolifera-
tion and apoptosis.6,7 The role of the peripheral nervous
system in initiating tendon repair and renewal in a rat model
of Achilles tendon injury has been identified by Ackerman
et al.8 The importance of the peptidergic “noceffectors”
calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and substance P
(SP) in repair was first described by Kruger et al. in 1989,9
and a review in the British Journal of Pharmacology in
200310 focussed on the evidence that nerves and blood
vessels control each other in a paracrine way. The new role
of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as a neuro-
trophic factor as well as an angiogenic factor is discussed
in “Vascular endothelial growth factor and the nervous
system”11 and research is now identifying CGRP nerves as
controlling tissue VEGF levels at least in psoriasis.12 VEGF
levels are elevated in tendinosis,13 and in oncology re-
search it is well established that VEGF prevents apoptosis
Subcutaneous prolotherapy treatment of refractory knee, shoulder, and lateral elbow pain
112 Australasian Musculoskeletal Medicine
and normal cell senescence, allowing proliferation of
nociceptors and endothelial cells to proceed unhindered.
Inflammation increases pain and this does not fit in with
the clinical experience in subcutaneous prolotherapy of an
immediate reduction in pain often after the first treatment,
and in particular night pain seems to diminish early.
The author hypothesizes that subcutaneous prolotherapy
injections of hypertonic glucose and 0.1% lignocaine in-
duce apoptosis of proliferating peptidergic noceffectors
and neovessels by reducing VEGF levels and restoring
“effective repair” processes, with reduction of pain.
Whatever the rationale is going to be for subcutaneous
prolotherapy, the reported initial results are encouraging,
particularly as one considers the proven safety, speed of
response, the low cost, and the lasting benefit of this
treatment.
References
1. Lyftogt J. Prolotherapy and Achilles tendinopathy: A prospec-
tive pilot study of an old treatment. Australas Musculoskeletal
Med 2005; 10(1): 16-19.
2. Khan KM, Cook JL, Kannus P et al. Time to abandon the
“tendonitis” myth. Br Med J 2002; 324: 626-27.
3. Watson P. The Recovergram. Australas Musculoskeletal
Med 2000; 5 (2): 24-28.
4. Ohberg L, Alfredson H. Effects on neovascularisation behind
the good results with eccentric training in chronic mid-portion
Achilles tendinosis? Knee Surg Traumatol Arthrosc 2004;12 (5):
465-70.
5. Hackett G. Ligamentous and tendon relaxation treated by
prolotherapy. 3rd ed. Springfield; Charles C Thomas, 1958.
6. Huang N F. University of California and University of California
San Francisco Joint Graduate Group in Bioengineering.
Apoptosis in abnormal wound healing.
7. Avocet Polymer Technologies Inc. Facts about Scars. Wound
healing and scarring. www.avocetcorp.com/wound
_healing.html.
8. Ackermann PW, Li J, Lundeberg T, Kreicbergs A. Neuronal
plasticity in relation to nociception and healing of rat Achilles
tendon. J Orthop Res 2002; 21 : 432-41.
9. Kruger L, Silverman JD, Mantyh P W et al. Peripheral patterns
of calcitonin-gene-related peptide general somatic sensory in-
nervation: Cutaneous and deep terminations. J Comp Neurol
1989; l280(2): 291-302.
10. Emanueli C, Schratzberger P, Kirchmair R, Madeddu P.
Paracrine control of vascularization and neurogenesis by
neurotrophins. Br J Pharmacol 2003; 140 (4):614-19.
11. Brockington A, Lewis C, Wharton S, Shaw PJ. Vascular
endothelial growth factor and the nervous system. Neuropathol
Appl Neurobiol 2004; 30: 427-46.
12. Yu X, Li C, Wang K, Dai HY. Calcitonin gene-related peptide
regulates the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor in
human HaCaT keratinocytes by activation of ERK1/2 MAPK.
Regul Pept 2006; 137(3):134-39.
13. Pufe T, Petersen WJ, Mentlein R, Tillmann BN. The role of
vasculature and angiogenesis for the pathogenesis of degen-
erative tendons disease. Scand J Med Sci Sorts 2005: 15: 211-
22.
Subcutaneous prolotherapy treatment of refractory knee, shoulder, and lateral elbow pain