Objective To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of eccentric loading exercises (ELE) with prolotherapy injections used singly and in combination for painful Achilles tendinosis.
Design A single-blinded randomised clinical trial. The primary outcome measure was the VISA-A questionnaire with a minimum clinically important change (MCIC) of 20 points.
Setting Five Australian primary care centres.
Participants 43 patients with painful mid-portion Achilles tendinosis commenced and 40 completed treatment protocols.
Interventions Participants were randomised to a 12-week program of ELE (n=15), or prolotherapy injections of hypertonic glucose with lignocaine alongside the affected tendon (n=14) or combined treatment (n=14).
Main outcome measurements VISA-A, pain, stiffness and limitation of activity scores; treatment costs.
Results At 12 months, proportions achieving the MCIC for VISA-A were 73% for ELE, 79% for prolotherapy and 86% for combined treatment. Mean (95% CI) increases in VISA-A scores at 12 months were 23.7 (15.6 to 31.9) for ELE, 27.5 (12.8 to 42.2) for prolotherapy and 41.1 (29.3 to 52.9) for combined treatment. At 6 weeks and 12 months, these increases were significantly less for ELE than for combined treatment. Compared with ELE, reductions in stiffness and limitation of activity occurred earlier with prolotherapy and reductions in pain, stiffness and limitation of activity occurred earlier with combined treatment. Combined treatment had the lowest incremental cost per additional responder ($A1539) compared with ELE.
Conclusions For Achilles tendinosis, prolotherapy and particularly ELE combined with prolotherapy give more rapid improvements in symptoms than ELE alone but long-term VISA-A scores are similar.
Trial registration number ACTRN: 12606000179538
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding The trial was funded by grants from the Musculoskeletal Research Foundation of Australia, the Australian Podiatry Education and Research Foundation and the Griffith University Office of Research. Kent Sweeting was supported by a Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development research fellowship. The funding bodies had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Patient consent Obtained.