Medical Information Only. Always consult your healthcare provider before enrolling in any clinical trial.

NCT01668953 · ClinicalTrials.gov registry record · NA

Comparison of Platelet Rich Plasma and Alternative Therapies for the Treatment of Tennis Elbow (Lateral Epicondylitis)

A NA study, sponsored by McMaster University.

Terminated
Registry status
NA
Development phase
100
Enrollment target

NCT01668953 is a NA study that was terminated before completion, run by McMaster University. The registered enrollment target is 100 participants.

View on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

View your shortlist →

The verdict

NCT01668953, a NA study, was terminated before completion, sponsored by McMaster University.

TERMINATED
Registry status
NA
Development phase
100 participants
Enrollment target

Study Summary

"Tennis elbow" is the most common cause of lateral elbow pain, generally caused by either work or sports related repetitive strain. In this condition, a tendon along the outside of the elbow becomes inflamed leading to pain, especially with flexing and extending the elbow. Many treatments have been attempted, including physiotherapy and steroids, with little success. One treatment which has been very effective is the injection of the patients own blood (taken from their other non-affected arm) into their abnormal tendon. The blood recruits the patients own healing factors and heals the damaged tendon. As platelets are thought to be largely responsible, injection of concentrated platelets, extracted from the patient's blood (platelet rich plasma) is a newer, but expensive, technique. At this point, it is unclear whether whole blood, concentrated platelets, or simply passing a ultrasound-guided needle through the abnormal tendon as a means to stimulate tissue healing (tendon fenestration) is the better treatment. The objective of this trial is to compare platelet rich plasma, whole blood, dry needle tendon fenestration, and sham injection (with physical therapy) to identify the best and most cost-effective therapy for this debilitating condition.

Interventions

  • OTHER Sham Injection
  • OTHER Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) Injection
  • OTHER Whole Blood Injection
  • OTHER Dry Needle Fenestration

Trial Details

FieldValue
Enrollment Target 100 participants
Start Date 2012-08
Est. Completion 2023-04
Phase NA

Sponsor

McMaster University

31 total trials

What the Registry Record Tells You About NCT01668953

The ClinicalTrials.gov registry entry for NCT01668953 describes a study currently listed as terminated, categorized as NA. The registered enrollment target is 100 participants, a figure that helps gauge the scale of data the investigators plan to collect. The listed sponsor is McMaster University, which has 31 total studies on file at ClinicalTrials.gov.

The record links to 0 conditions, and to 4 interventions - of which Sham Injection is the first listed.

NCT01668953 reports 0 study locations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is clinical trial NCT01668953 about?

NCT01668953 is a clinical study titled "Comparison of Platelet Rich Plasma and Alternative Therapies for the Treatment of Tennis Elbow (Lateral Epicondylitis)". "Tennis elbow" is the most common cause of lateral elbow pain, generally caused by either work or sports related repetitive strain. In this condition, a tendon along the outside of the elbow becomes inflamed leading to pain, especially with flexing and extending the elbow. Many treatments have been...

What is the current status of trial NCT01668953?

This trial is currently terminated. It is a NA study. The enrollment target is 100 participants. The study started on 2012-08. Estimated completion is 2023-04.

What interventions are being tested in trial NCT01668953?

The interventions under investigation include: Sham Injection (OTHER), Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) Injection (OTHER), Whole Blood Injection (OTHER), Dry Needle Fenestration (OTHER).

Who is sponsoring clinical trial NCT01668953?

This trial is sponsored by McMaster University, which has 31 total clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details. Retrieved and formatted by PlainTrial Editorial

Every figure on PlainTrial is rendered directly from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry, no number is typed in by an editor. This page mirrors this trial's own ClinicalTrials.gov registry record, live from the dataset. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error.