Advertisement - Hide this advert





Author Topic: PRP for Tendonitis  (Read 3372 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline claus6778

  • MINIgeek (20-50 posts)
  • **
  • Posts: 43
  • Liked: 0
PRP for Tendonitis
« on: May 15, 2014, 10:29:09 AM »
Hi everyone,

Has anyone tried PRP for quadricep or patellar tendonitis?  If so, I have a couple questions.

1. Was the injection more superficial (maybe just a cm deep)? 

2. Was PRP injected in several spots around tendon but not directly injected at the tendon? 

3. Did your practitioner use ultrasound to guide the injection?

I had a couple PRP shots but they were injected deep into the knee joint. I think they are more for cartilage issues rather than tendon.

Thank you.
roger

Offline MDAL

  • Forum Faithful
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Liked: 108
Re: PRP for Tendonitis
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2014, 09:32:50 PM »
There is no established procedure. Each doctor has it's own method, because PRP is still in the experimental field, one reason why insurances don't typically pay for it.

If you are treating the patella tendon, I guess most doctors wouldn't need ultrasound, unless they want to put up a tech show. That is not a tendon hard to find, it's superficial and it stands out, if they can't see it, glasses might be more helpful than ultrasound. Ultrasound may be of better use for an internal tendon, like ACL for example.

Typically it's injected in multiple points to let the fluid run around. But each doctor has it's own ways... for patella tendon, there is no reason to go deeper than 1 cm, or he may actually go to the other side of the tendon.


Offline psny

  • Forum Faithful
  • ****
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 14
Re: PRP for Tendonitis
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2014, 07:09:34 AM »
There is no established procedure. Each doctor has it's own method, because PRP is still in the experimental field, one reason why insurances don't typically pay for it.

If you are treating the patella tendon, I guess most doctors wouldn't need ultrasound, unless they want to put up a tech show. That is not a tendon hard to find, it's superficial and it stands out, if they can't see it, glasses might be more helpful than ultrasound. Ultrasound may be of better use for an internal tendon, like ACL for example.

Typically it's injected in multiple points to let the fluid run around. But each doctor has it's own ways... for patella tendon, there is no reason to go deeper than 1 cm, or he may actually go to the other side of the tendon.

I agree with all of those points. I have first hand experience with image guidance and no image guidance on my achilles tendon. In the injection without image guidance the doctor did not pepper the area as well and did not go as deep into the injury site with the needle. There is a certain level of hesitation with going blind, regardless of skill level and experience. The doctor that used image guidance was able to slowly pepper the area by adjusting the angle of the needle and was able to go very deep almost down to the bone. The end result is the injury healed. I don't know which method was more effective with regards to healing, but the ultra sounded guided injection definitely had better coverage and MUCH more pain following injection. The pain was definitely the result of much more peppering with the needle.















support