Original article
Pain relief after intratendinous injections in patients
with tennis elbow: results of a randomised study
E Zeisig,1 M Fahlström,2 L Öhberg,3 H Alfredson1
1
Department of Surgical and
Perioperative Science, Sports
Medicine, University of Umeå,
Umeå, Sweden; 2 Department of
Community Medicine and
Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation
Medicine, University of Umeå,
Umeå, Sweden; 3 Department of
Radiation Sciences, Diagnostic
Radiology, University of Umeå,
Umeå, Sweden
Correspondence to:
E Zeisig, Sports Medicine Unit,
Department of Surgical and
Perioperative Science, Umeå
University, 901 87 Umeå,
Sweden; eva.zeisig@vll.se
Accepted 12 January 2008
Published Online First
23 January 1008
ABSTRACT
Background: ‘‘Tennis elbow’’ is a difficult condition to
treat. Ultrasonography (US) and colour Doppler (CD)
guided injections with polidocanol targeting the area with
increased blood flow in the extensor origin have shown
promising clinical results.
Objective: To evaluate and compare effects of US and
CD guided intratendinous injections with sclerosing
polidocanol and a local anaesthetic (lidocaine +
epinephrine), in patients with tennis elbow.
Design: Prospective, randomised, controlled, doubleblind, crossover study.
Setting: Sports Medicine Unit, Umeå University.
Patients: 32 patients (36 elbows), age range 27 to
66 years, with a long duration of elbow pain diagnosed as
tennis elbow, were included in the study. All patients
were followed up 3 and 12 months after treatment. Two
patients were excluded due to other interventions during
the study.
Interventions: One US and CD guided injection with the
sclerosing agent polidocanol (group 1) or the local
anaesthetic lidocaine plus epinephrine (group 2). At the
3 month follow-up, additional injections with polidocanol
were offered to both groups (crossover for group 2).
Main outcome measures: Satisfaction with treatment
(Yes/No), elbow pain during activity (visual analogue
scale), and maximum voluntary grip strength.
Results: There were no significant (p,0.05) differences
in the outcome between group 1 and group 2. In both
groups, there was a significantly lower VAS at the
3-month and 12-month follow-ups, and grip strength was
significantly higher at the 12-month follow-up.
Conclusions: US and CD guided intratendinous injections
gave pain relief in patients with tennis elbow. Polidocanol
and lidocaine plus epinephrine injections gave similar
results.
Tennis elbow, chronic pain of extensor origin, is
known to be troublesome to treat. The aetiology
and pathogenesis are unknown, as is the origin of
pain. The general opinion is that the condition is
due to overuse, and that the extensor carpi radialis
brevis muscle (ECRB) plays a central role.1–3
Furthermore, there is no traditional inflammation.2 4 The histological findings vary, and include
microrupture, granulation tissue and degenerative
changes.2 3 5 6 Consequently, the term ‘‘lateral
elbow tendinopathy or tendinosis’’ is used instead
of ‘‘lateral epicondylitis’’.
Numerous methods have been used to try to
treat the condition, including physiotherapy, various types of injections, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), various types of surgical
treatments, orthotic devices and rest, but there is
no ‘‘gold standard’’ for treatment.7–14 The target for
Br J Sports Med 2008;42:267–271. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2007.042762
most methods is the common extensor origin.
Various substances have been used for injection
treatment, including corticosteroids, platelet-rich
plasma and autologous blood.9 11 13
Previous studies using ultrasound (US) and
colour Doppler (CD) have shown increased blood
flow in the extensor origin, and a possible relationship between increased blood flow and pain has
been suggested.15
Recent studies on other tendons with chronic
painful tendinosis, such as in the Achilles tendon
and in the patellar tendon, have shown changes in
vessels and nerves in the area.16 17 Ljung et al have
shown an innervation pattern in the extensor
origin,18 and in a recent pilot study, US and CD
guided injections targeting the area with increased
blood flow showed promising clinical results.19
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects
of US and CD guided injections with a sclerosing
agent (polidocanol) and local anaesthetic (lidocaine
plus epinephrine) in patients with tennis elbow.
The hypothesis was that the sclerosing polidocanol, but not the non-sclerosing lidocaine plus
epinephrine, would affect pain in the extensor
origin and grip strength.
METHODS
The investigation was approved by the ethics
committee of the Medical Faculty, University of
Umeå. Informed consent was obtained from the
patients after the study was explained both orally
and in writing to them.
Participants
In total, 65 patients with lateral elbow pain were
referred to the Sports Medicine Unit in Umeå
between November 2005 and May 2006. Of these,
24 (37%) patients did not have the clinical
diagnosis of tennis elbow, and were excluded.
Thus, 32 patients (16 men, 16 women, mean age
46 years, range 27 to 66), with a long duration
(mean 21 months, range 3 to 96) of pain diagnosed
as tennis elbow (a total of 36 elbows), were eligible
for the study.
All patients, except one who was retired, had
pain symptoms during their work. Ten patients
were on sick leave due to pain in the elbow. In 21
elbows, there was tennis elbow on the dominant
side. Previous treatment included NSAIDs (n = 27),
cortisone injections (n = 24), stretching (n = 22),
eccentric training (n = 22), orthotic devices
(n = 21), acupuncture (n = 13), ultrasound
(n = 9), injection with botulinum toxin (n = 5)
and surgery (tendon lengthening) (n = 2).
Demographic data for each group are shown in
table 1.
267
Original article
Table 1 Patient characteristics in the two groups
Data
Sex (F/M)
Age (years)
Duration of symptoms (months)
VAS (100 mm scale)*
0 months
3 months
12 months
Maximum grip strength (kg)
0 months
3 months
12 months
Satisfied with treatment (Yes/No)
3 months
12 months
Group 1
Group 2
8/10
43 (27–62)
24 (3–96)
6/10
49 (34–66)
19 (4–60)
68 (33–100)
59 (13–97)
36 (0–88)
70 (32–88)
54 (12–82)
34 (0–95)
37 (11–66)
41 (12–68)
47 (17–76)
43 (10–68)
42 (14–68)
48 (24–74)
9/9
14/4
10/6
13/3
VAS, visual analogue scale.
*0, No pain; 100, severe pain.
Group 1, polidocanol; group 2, lidocaine + epinephrine.
There were no significant differences between the groups.
Inclusion criteria were pain on palpation of the extensor
origin on the lateral epicondyle, pain elicited from the lateral
epicondyle by forced extension of the wrist, symptoms for more
than 3 months, and no interventions for the condition during
the previous 3 months.
Exclusion criteria were arthritis, synovitis of the proximal
radioulnar joint, entrapment of the radial nerve, generalised
pain syndrome, radiculopathy from the cervical spine, and any
other diseases (medial epicondylagia, impaired sensibility,
paralysis) that would affect the outcome measurements. Two
patients had the correct diagnosis but were excluded on the
basis of these criteria. One had a generalised pain syndrome, and
the other had had intracerebral haemorrhage with impaired
sensibility.
Three more patients were offered participation in the study
but rejected; one did not want any injections and the other two
did nt live in the area and could not attend for follow-up.
Two further patients were excluded after the first follow-up:
one had received an injection of botulinum toxin 2 weeks after
inclusion in our study, and the other had received an injection of
corticosteroids for pain in the flexor origin at the medial
epicondyle of the elbow 4 weeks after inclusion.
Study design, randomisation and blinding
The study design is shown in fig 1. All the patients and the
radiologist were blinded to the substance that was injected. The
patients selected a sealed envelope from a box with 36 opaque
envelopes, allocating them to one of the two treatments. The
envelope was opened by an assistant in a separate room, where
the substance was prepared for injection. The equipment was
the same for all treatments, and there were no visible differences
in colour or density between the two different substances.
Immediately after the 3-month evaluation, the code was
broken.
Sonography
All tendons were examined with high-resolution grey-scale US
and with CD (Acuson Sequoia 512; 8–13 MHz frequency). The
examinations were carried out with the patient in a sitting
position, with the arm resting on a table, having 70–80u of
elbow flexion and a pronated wrist. CD was used to locate
268
increased blood flow. All participants had structural changes
and increased blood flow in the area with tendon changes (fig 2).
Initial intervention
Two different substances were used for the injection treatment:
polidocanol (10 mg/ml) (group 1) or lidocaine hydrochloride
(10 mg/ml) plus epinephrine (5 mg/ml) (group 2). Polidocanol
has a sclerosing effect by acting directly on the intimae layer in
the vascular wall or indirectly by compressive effects on vessels
through tissue expansion, and also has a local anaesthetic effect.
Lidocaine hydrochloride has a local anaesthetic effect, and was
combined with epinephrine to provide a vasoconstrictive effect.
The patients were given one injection of the appropriate
substance. Participants sat in the same position as for the
US/CD examination. Before treatment, the skin was washed
with a solution of chlorhexidine and alcohol. The injections
were performed with a 0.7650 mm needle connected to a 2-ml
syringe. The injections were performed dynamically, with the
aid of real-time grey-scale US and CD guidance, injecting close
to the target vessels inside the extensor origin. When the tip of
the needle was positioned in the area with increased blood flow,
a small volume of 0.5 ml of polidocanol or lidocaine plus
epinephrine was injected (fig 2). Both substances had an
immediate effect on the blood flow (no flow detected using
CD), and all patients had temporary pain relief after injection.
After treatment, there were no restrictions for patients’ activity
level.
The same experienced radiologist (LÖ) performed all US and
CD examinations and interventions.
Follow-up
The patients were followed up 3 months after injection.
Patients in both groups were offered another injection with
the sclerosing substance polidocanol (the study protocol
included a crossover for group 2) if pain still existed. Patients
given another injection were followed up every sixth week until
3 months after the last injection. Follow-up was carried out for
all patients 12 months after the first injection.
Outcome measures
Primary outcome measures were (1) satisfaction with treatment
(Yes/No) and (2) elbow pain during grip activities in daily life,
including work situations. Using a 100-mm VAS for pain, 0, no
pain; 100, severe pain). The secondary outcome measure was
maximum voluntary grip strength, evaluated by using a
hydraulic hand dynamometer (FEI Irvington, New York,
USA). During the dynamometer test, the arm was held in the
horizontal plane, with the elbow straight and the wrist in
neutral position. Maximum grip strength was measured three
times, and the highest value was used for statistical analysis.
Statistical analysis
Based on data from our pilot study (polidocanol injected in the
extensor origin) in which 11/13 patients reported satisfaction,
and the assumption that local anaesthesia would have a similar
effect to placebo, it was calculated that 14 patients were needed
in each group.19 The SPSS package (version 14.0, SPSS Inc,
Chicago, Illinois, USA) was used for all statistical calculations.
Differences between groups concerning continuous data were
calculated using the Mann–Whitney U test. When data was
categorical, the Fisher exact test was used. Differences over time
within the groups were calculated using the Wilcoxon signed
ranks test. Significance was set at p,0.05 for all groups.
Br J Sports Med 2008;42:267–271. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2007.042762
Original article
Figure 1
Study design.
RESULTS
Baseline data (age, duration of symptoms, sex, work, affected
side, sick leave) did not differ between the two groups. At the
3-month follow-up, the patients who were not fully satisfied
were offered additional injections with polidocanol (crossover
for group 2). In group 1, nine patients had additional treatment
(1–3 injections), and in group 2, seven patients had additional
treatment with polidocanol (1–2 injections).
Follow-up at 3 months
At the 3-month follow-up, there were no significant differences
in satisfaction with treatment (p = 0.51), pain during grip
activity (p = 0.49) and grip strength (p = 0.86) between the
patients in group 1 and the patients in group 2. Satisfaction
with the treatment was reported by 9/18 (50%) patients in
group 1 and 10/16 (62%) patients in group 2. The patients in
both groups had a significantly lower VAS (pain during grip
activity) after treatment than they had had before treatment
(p = 0.026). Outcome for each group is shown in table 2.
Follow-up at 12 months
Figure 2 (A–C) Patient clinically diagnosed with tennis elbow. The
extensor origin is shown in longitudinal view. (A) Grey-scale
ultrasonography (US) shows irregular structure and hypoechoicity in the
extensor origin. (B) Colour Doppler (CD) shows blood flow inside the area
with structural changes in the extensor origin—that is, the target for the
injection. (C) Grey-scale ultrasonography (US) immediately after
treatment; arrow indicated tip of needle.
Br J Sports Med 2008;42:267–271. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2007.042762
At the 12 month follow-up, there were no significant differences
in satisfaction with the treatment (p = 1.0), pain during grip
activity (p = 0.66) and grip strength (p = 0.11) between the two
groups. Satisfaction with the treatment was reported by 14/18
(78%) patients in group 1 and 13/16 (81%) patients in group 2.
The patients in both groups had a significantly lower VAS
(p,0.000) and a significantly higher grip strength (p,0.000)
after treatment than they before treatment. Outcome for each
group is shown in table 2.
Adverse effects
There were no adverse effects in either group.
269
Original article
Table 2 Outcomes in the two groups
Group 1
VAS*
Grip strength (kg)
Group 2
VAS*
Grip strength (kg)
Baseline
3 months
p Value
12 months
p Value
68 (33 to 100)
37 (11 to 66)
59 (13 to 97)
41 (12 to 68)
0.37
0.03
36 (0 to 88)
47 (17 to 76)
0.006
0.000
70 (32 to 88)
43 (10 to 68)
54 (12 to 82)
42 (14 to 68)
0.03
0.53
34 (0 to 95)
48 (24 to 74)
0.006
0.055
VAS, visual analogue scale.
*0, No pain; 100, severe pain; measured during tendon loading activity.
Maximum grip strength measured with a hand dynamometer.
DISCUSSION
The main finding in our study was that there were no
differences in the clinical results between US and CD guided
intratendinous injections of the sclerosing substance polidocanol
and the local anaesthetic lidocaine + epinephrine in patients with
chronic painful tennis elbow. About half of the patients in both
groups (50% and 62%, respectively) were satisfied with the results
of the treatment at the 3-month follow-up. Additional injections
in both groups (crossover design used for group 2), improved the
clinical results to around 80% of patients satisfied. Of the nonsatisfied patients, two were later treated surgically.
As there were no adverse effects in the groups, we consider
the treatments safe. Three participants in group 2 noted
increased elbow pain and stiffness during the first week after
injection with lidocaine + epinephrine.
Tennis elbow is not always easy to diagnose. About one-third
of the patients referred to our unit did not meet the diagnostic
criteria for tennis elbow. We believe we have used the
appropriate methods to diagnose, and that our group of patients
is representative of patients with severe tennis elbow. The
group of patients included had a long duration of elbow pain,
and had tried multiple treatments with disappointing results.
We elected to use VAS and patient satisfaction as the primary
outcome measures. VAS is known to be a reliable instrument for
scoring differences in pain over time. Nevertheless, it has its
restrictions, as the scoring needs to be related to the same level
of activity each time. Less pain often leads to an increased
activity level, which sometimes induce more pain. At the
12-month follow-up, four patients were still on sick leave (10
What is already known on this topic
c
c
c
Pain in patients with tennis elbow is elicited from the extensor
origin at the lateral epicondyle.
Ultrasonography examination of the extensor origin in patients
with tennis elbow shows structural changes.
Colour Doppler examination of the extensor origin in patients
with tennis elbow shows increased blood flow.
What is already known on this topic
patients at the start), and we believe this might explain why the
mean VAS was still quite high at the end of the study. Using the
VAS in combination with satisfaction with treatment, the
results seem easier to evaluate.
As the secondary outcome measure, we used grip strength,
which is considered the best objective outcome measure.20
The study design (crossover for group 2), made it impossible
to investigate if multiple lidocaine + epinephrine injections
would also improve the clinical results. This might be
considered as a weakness of the study; however, our hypothesis
when designing the study was that the local anaesthetic
lidocaine plus epinephrine would have nothing but a temporary
pain-relieving effect.
US and CD guided intratendinous injection technique has
also been used by Connell et al. They have shown promising
results using a dry-needle technique together with injection of
autologous blood, with good clinical short-term results in 32/36
patients after a mean of 2 injections.9
Blind (not guided by US or CD) local injections have been
used for treatment for many years. Corticosteroid injections are
commonly used, with varying results.13 Mishra and Pavelko
injected buffered platelet-rich plasma, using a ‘‘peppering’’
technique, and reported good clinical short-time results in 15
patients (81% improvement in VAS after 6 months). The
injections were was preceded by an injection of local anaesthetic
+ epinephrine, and approximately 0.5 mL was injected into the
area of maximum tenderness.11
With the results of the aforementioned studies in mind, it is
tempting to believe that the intratendinous injection in itself,
not the substance injected, is of significant importance for the
clinical result. US and CD guided injections reliably deposit the
substance in the area with tendon changes, whereas the
positioning of blinded injections seems more unreliable.
Theoretically, the increased intra tendinous pressure caused by
injecting a volume into the tendon might be responsible for the
pain relieving effects.
In conclusion, we found that one US and CD guided
intratendinous injection of the sclerosing substance polidocanol
or the local anaesthetic lidocaine plus epinephrine gave pain
relief in 50–62% of patients with tennis elbow. Additional
injections with polidocanol in patients who were not fully
satisfied improved the clinical results.
Acknowledgements: The Swedish Research Council for Sports funded the study.
c
c
270
Ultrasonography and colour Doppler guided injections
targeting the region with blood flow in the extensor origin at
the lateral epicondyle gives pain relief in patients with tennis
elbow.
Good clinical results were seen after both polidocanol and
lidocaine plus epinephrine injections.
Competing interests: None.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
Ljung BO, Lieber RL, Friden J. Wrist extensor muscle pathology in lateral
epicondylitis. J Hand Surg [Br] 199;24:177–83.
Potter HG, Hannafin JA, Morwessel RM, et al. Lateral epicondylitis: correlation of
MR imaging, surgical, and histopathologic findings. Radiology 1995;196:43–6.
Br J Sports Med 2008;42:267–271. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2007.042762
Original article
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Regan W, Wold LE, Coonrad R, et al. Microscopic histopathology of chronic
refractory lateral epicondylitis. Am J Sports Med 1992;20:746–9.
Alfredson H, Ljung BO, Thorsen K, et al. In vivo investigation of ECRB tendons with
microdialysis technique—no signs of inflammation but high amounts of glutamate in
tennis elbow. Acta Orthop Scand 2000;71:475–9.
Coonrad RW, Hooper WR. Tennis elbow: its course, natural history, conservative
and surgical management. J Bone Joint Surg 1973;55:1177–82.
Nirschl RP. Elbow tendinosis/tennis elbow. Clin Sports Med 1992;11:851–70.
Bisset L, Paungmali A, Vicenzino B, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of
clinical trials on physical interventions for lateral epicondylalgia. Br J Sports Med
2005;39:411–22; discussion 422.
Buchbinder R, Green S, Bell S, et al. Surgery for lateral elbow pain. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2002(1):CD003525.
Connell DA, Ali KE, Ahmad M, et al. Ultrasound-guided autologous blood injection
for tennis elbow. Skeletal Radiol 2006;35:371–7.
Green S, Buchbinder R, Barnsley L, et al. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
(NSAIDs) for treating lateral elbow pain in adults. Cochrane database of systematic
reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2001.
Mishra A, Pavelko T. Treatment of chronic elbow tendinosis with buffered plateletrich plasma. Am J Sports Med 2006;34:1774–8.
Placzek R, Drescher W, Deuretzbacher G, et al. Treatment of chronic radial
epicondylitis with botulinum toxin A. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized
multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg 2007;89:255–60.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Smidt N, Assendelft WJJ, Windt Dvd, et al. Corticosteroid injections for tennis
elbow. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd, 1999.
Struijs PA, Smidt N, Arola H, et al. Orthotic devices for the treatment of tennis
elbow. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;(1):CD001821.
Zeisig E, Ohberg L, Alfredson H. Extensor origin vascularity related to pain in patients
with Tennis elbow. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006;14:659–63.
Alfredson H, Ohberg L. Neovascularisation in chronic painful patellar tendinosis—
promising results after sclerosing neovessels outside the tendon challenge the need
for surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2005;13:74–80.
Alfredson H, Ohberg L, Forsgren S. Is vasculo-neural ingrowth the cause of pain in
chronic Achilles tendinosis? An investigation using ultrasonography and colour
Doppler, immunohistochemistry, and diagnostic injections. Knee Surg Sports
Traumatol Arthrosc 2003;11:334–8.
Ljung BO, Alfredson H, Forsgren S. Neurokinin 1-receptors and sensory
neuropeptides in tendon insertions at the medial and lateral epicondyles of the
humerus. Studies on tennis elbow and medial epicondylalgia. J Orthop Res
2004;22:321–7.
Zeisig E, Ohberg L, Alfredson H. Sclerosing injections in chronic painful tennis elbowpromising results in a pilot study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
2006;14:1218–24.
De Smet L, Van Ransbeeck H, Fabry G. Grip strength in tennis elbow: long-term
results of operative treatment. Acta Orthop Belg 1998;64:167–9.
Call for papers – BJSM theme issue January 2009: Integrating Physical Activity into
Clinical Practice (Guest Editor: Professor Steven Blair)
Rationale – Why a special theme issue?
Research on the health benefits of regular physical activity has accumulated rapidly over the past few
decades. There is now compelling evidence that physical activity has substantial health benefits for all.
Physical activity prevents many of the major chronic diseases, delays loss of functional capacity and
extends longevity. The benefits of physical activity accrue to the young, adults and older adults; to
people with chronic disease and those who are healthy; and to people of all sizes and shapes.
Despite the now overwhelming evidence for the health benefits of physical activity, we have been slow
to develop and implement broadly based public health strategies to increase and maintain activity in the
population. One notable area of concern is clinical medicine, where, despite lip service, physical activity
interventions are rarely prescribed. To rectify this problem, we encourage clinicians to pay more
attention to promoting physical activity during patient consults. This themed issue of BJSM will review
the current state of the science and provide practical recommendations as to how clinicians can
implement effective physical activity interventions.
Deadline for submissions to this issue is 1st August 2008
You can submit papers at http://submit-bjsm.bmj.com
For enquiries email bjsm@bmjgroup.com
Br J Sports Med 2008;42:267–271. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2007.042762
271
Copyright of British Journal of Sports Medicine is the property of BMJ Publishing Group and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.