ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Recent Advances in Ultrasound-Guided Hydrodissection and Dextrose Prolotherapy for Musculoskeletal Pain: A Target-Based State-of-the-Art Narrative Review.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultrasound-guided hydrodissection and dextrose prolotherapy have evolved into anatomically explicit but mechanistically distinct strategies for musculoskeletal pain. This State-of-the-Art narrative review aimed to synthesize major recent clinical and technical developments and to interpret them within a target-based framework. PubMed and Embase via Ovid were searched for English-language publications from 1 January 2021 through 29 July 2026, supplemented by selected pre-2021 landmark studies identified through backward citation tracking. After initial deduplication, 1662 records entered Title/Abstract screening. The final narrative synthesis cited 67 publications, including selected landmark and methodological sources. One author performed screening, and a second author reviewed the final publication selection; study selection was purposive and designed for a narrative synthesis rather than exhaustive systematic inclusion. Four questions guided the review: recent refinements in hydrodissection technique and indications; increasing condition specificity of prolotherapy evidence; areas of overlap and distinction between the two procedures; and the evidentiary status of emerging applications. Hydrodissection research remains concentrated in carpal tunnel syndrome and increasingly addresses injectate, volume, tissue-plane spread, and procedural configuration, whereas evidence beyond the carpal tunnel remains incompletely replicated. Prolotherapy research has shifted from broad claims toward condition-specific studies in tendinopathy, plantar fasciopathy, knee osteoarthritis, periarticular disorders, and temporomandibular joint pathology. Across both fields, variations in concentration, volume, anatomical site, session number, comparator, rehabilitation, and procedural expertise limit generalization. Hydrodissection is defined by observable, fluid-mediated separation of a tissue interface, whereas prolotherapy involves dextrose delivery to a symptomatic connective-tissue target without requiring immediate tissue-plane separation. The proposed framework is intended to standardize terminology, organize evidence maturity, and guide future comparative research rather than prescribe a validated treatment algorithm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.