To compare the efficacy of common invasive and noninvasive patellar tendinopathy (PT) treatment strategies.
A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL, UptoDate, Cochrane Reviews, and SPORTDiscus. Fifteen studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) therapeutic outcome trial for PT, and (2) Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment was used to assess symptom severity at follow-up. Methodological quality and reporting bias were evaluated with a modified Coleman score and Begg's and Egger's tests of bias, respectively.
A total of 15 studies were included. Reporting quality was high (mean Coleman score 86.0, standard deviation 9.7), and there was no systematic evidence of reporting bias. Increased duration of symptoms resulted in poorer outcomes regardless of treatment (0.9% decrease in improvement per additional month of symptoms; P = .004). Eccentric training with or without core stabilization or stretching improved symptoms (61% improvement in the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment score, 95% confidence interval [CI] 53% to 69%). Surgery in patients refractory to nonoperative treatment also improved symptoms (57%, 95% CI 52% to 62%) with similar outcomes among arthroscopic and open approaches. Results from shockwave (54%, 95% CI 22% to 87%) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) studies (55%, 95% CI 5% to 105%) varied widely though PRP may accelerate early recovery. Finally, steroid injection provided no benefit (20%, 95% CI -20% to 60%).
Initial treatment of PT can consist of eccentric squat-based therapy, shockwave, or PRP as monotherapy or an adjunct to accelerate recovery. Surgery or shockwave can be considered for patients who fail to improve after 6 months of conservative treatment. Corticosteroid therapy should not be used in the treatment of PT.
Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,403,377
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
#93
of 5,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,218
of 466,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
#5
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,199 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 466,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
