Comparative Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Intratendinous Prolotherapy Injection with Conventional Treatment to Treat Focal Supraspinatus Tendinosis

<div>Boxplot comparing the difference in degree of abduction between the prolotherapy group and the control group at baseline and at 12 weeks (<svg height="10.2124pt" id="M17" style="vertical-align:-3.42943pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -6.78297 7.83752 10.2124" width="7.83752pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M570 304C570 398 525 448 414 448C385 448 343 445 312 434L329 511L321 518C297 504 262 482 244 460L233 411C195 397 159 381 128 358L135 332C160 347 189 360 224 373L111 -147C97 -210 84 -218 17 -231L13 -257L254 -247L259 -218L233 -216C183 -212 177 -202 189 -142L218 -1C238 -10 266 -12 283 -12C351 3 429 48 483 105C543 168 570 242 570 304ZM482 289C482 161 380 33 304 33C278 33 248 51 233 69L303 396C326 400 352 403 369 403C428 403 482 380 482 289Z" id="g113-113"></path></g></svg> value = 0.030).</div>

Scientifica

fig2

Figure 2

Figure 2: Comparative Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Intratendinous Prolotherapy Injection with Conventional Treatment to Treat Focal Supraspinatus Tendinosis 

Figure 2 | Comparative Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Intratendinous Prolotherapy Injection with Conventional Treatment to Treat Focal Supraspinatus Tendinosis 