A comparison between hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy and conventional physiotherapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis
- Kamil Mursit Yildiz
- Hayal Guler
- Halil Ogut
- Mustafa Turgut Yildizgoren
- Ayse Dicle Turhanoglu
Affiliations: Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Medical School, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Antakya, Hatay, 31001, Turkey, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Konya City Hospital, Karatay, Konya 42020, Turkey, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Medical School, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Antakya, Hatay, 31001, Turkey
- Published online on: August 29, 2023 https://doi.org/10.3892/mi.2023.105
Copyright : © Yildiz
et al. This is an open access article distributed under the
terms of Creative
Commons Attribution License [CC BY 4.0].
Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
This article is mentioned in:
The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy (HDP) with conventional physiotherapy (CPT) in improving symptoms in females with knee osteoarthritis (OA). The present study included 60 patients with a diagnosis of knee OA. The patients were randomly assigned to the HDP (n=30) and CPT (n=30) groups. The patients in the HDP group were treated with a dextrose injection into the knee joint (25% dextrose) and around the knee (15% dextrose) in two sessions for 1 month, while those in the CPT group received a hot pack, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and therapeutic ultrasound in five sessions a week for 4 weeks. Prior to commencing the treatment, and at 1 and 3 months post‑treatment, all the patients were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the goniometric measurement of active knee range of motion (ROM), a 50‑m walking test and isokinetic knee muscle strength measurements. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups as regards the demographic characteristics at pre‑treatment (P>0.05). However, at 1 and 3 months post‑treatment, the scores of all the outcome parameters were significantly improved in the HDP group compared with the CPT group (P<0.05 for all). In both groups, a significant improvement was observed in the VAS scores, WOMAC total values and ROM following the treatments, with the greatest improvement observed in the HDP group (P<0.001). The isokinetic quadriceps peak torque measurements were increased in both groups following treatment. All the scores exhibited a statistically significant improvement in the HDP group at both 1 and 3 months post‑treatment. On the whole, the results of the present study demonstrate that both HDP and CPT are effective treatment modalities to relieve pain, and increase functionality and strength in patients with knee OA. However, greater improvements in pain and functionality can be achieved with prolotherapy.