Determining the Immediate Effects of Counterforce Bracing Versus Kinesiotaping in Patients With Tennis Elbow (LE)

Lawson Health Research Institute

Status: Completed

Conditions: Tennis Elbow

Treatments: Device: Kinesiotape; Device: Counterforce elbow brace

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT02235818

HSREB103099

Details and patient eligibility

About

The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate efficacy of Counterforce brace versus kinesiotaping on patients with lateral epicondylosis/tennis elbow with respect to a repetitive physical task. The investigators hypothesized that there would be difference in the outcomes with respect to interventions and activity. Patient came for one hour long Single occasion testing session and were not followed up after the testing was complete.

Full description

This was a cross over randomized control trial. Thirty patients with clinical diagnosis of lateral epicondylosis/tennis elbow were recruited from a local community and were tested on single occasion (one time testing session) before and after a five minute upper extremity repetitive task first with control and then brace and kinesiotape assigned in cross-over design. The testing session was one hour long and there was no follow up of patients following the testing. The patients were recruited between Jan-June 2013.

Enrollment: 30 patients

Sex: All

Ages: 18 to 70 years old

Volunteers: No Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

1. Age (18-70 years)
2. Ability to provide written informed consent to participate
3. Were at least three weeks from onset of symptoms
4. Complaints of discomfort or pain at the lateral elbow region for a minimum of three weeks and tenderness with palpation of the lateral epicondyle
5. Provocation of lateral elbow pain with one of the following test - resisted middle finger extension, resisted wrist extension or passive stretch of wrist extensors

Exclusion criteria

1. History of surgery on affected elbow
2. History of cortisone injections on the affected elbow in the past 4 weeks
3. Any physical or mental limitations that precluded performance of the study testing
4. Allergy to adhesive tapes

Trial design

Primary purpose: Treatment

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Crossover Assignment

Masking: None (Open label)

---

30 participants in 2 patient groups

Kinesiotape (KT)

Active Comparator group

Description:

Kinesiotape was used only on the affected side as per the manufacturer instructions. With the elbow extended, wrist fully flexed and fingers pointed down 24, KT was applied with slight stretch (10-15%) and paper off tension to the lateral arm beginning just above the bony portion of lateral epicondyle. Once the top strand was anchored, KT was applied along the side of elbow such that hole in the tape was over lateral epicondyle of the elbow. Two strands of tape followed the lateral forearm and ended at around beginning of the distal one third of forearm. Once the support was applied, KT was gently rubbed to activate the glue.

Treatment:

Device: Kinesiotape

Counterforce elbow brace

Active Comparator group

Description:

The counterforce brace was approximately 5cm wide with velcro attachment for adjustable girth. It had gel pack for extra support on extensor muscle mass. With the elbow extended, brace was applied 2.5cms below the lateral epicondyle. A feeling of comfortable compression, as reported by the patients was used to adjust the brace.

Treatment:

Device: Counterforce elbow brace