Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Current advances in the treatment of medial and lateral epicondylitis

Tarpada SP., Morris MT., Lian J., Rashidi S.

Narrative Review on Tendon Injury, Scar, published in J Orthop (2018) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
J Orthop (2018)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
29657450
PMCID
PMC5895908
DOI
10.1016/j.jor.2018.01.040
Citations
31

Abstract (original English)

Despite advances elucidating the causes of lateral and medial epicondylitis, the standard of care remains conservative management with NSAIDs, physical therapy, bracing, and rest. Scar tissue formation provoked by conservative management creates a tendon lacking the biomechanical properties and mechanical strength of normal tendon. The following review analyzes novel therapies to regenerate tendon and regain function in patients with epicondylitis. These treatments include PRP injection, BMAC, collagen-producing cell injection, and stem cell treatments. While these treatments are in early stages of investigation, they may warrant further consideration based on prospects of pain alleviation, function enhancement, and improved healing.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research