A systematic review of inflammatory cells and markers in human tendinopathy

Abstract

Abstract Background This article systematically reviews the current evidence regarding inflammation in Tendinopathy with the aim to increase understanding of a potential common pathophysiology. Methods Following the PRISMA statements, the terms: (tendinopathy OR (tendons AND rupture)) AND (inflammation OR (inflammation AND cells) OR immune system OR inflammation mediators OR bacteria) were used. One thousand four hundred thirty-one articles were identified which was screened down to 53. Results 39/53 studies mentioned inflammatory cells but had contradicting conclusions. Macrophages were the most common cell type and inflammatory markers were detectable in all the articles which measure them. Conclusions The included studies show different conclusions, but this heterogeneity is not unexpected since the clinical criteria of ‘tendinopathy’ encompass a huge clinical spectrum. Different ‘tendinopathy’ conditions may have different pathophysiology, and even the same clinical condition may be at different disease stages during sampling, which can alter the histological and biochemical picture. Control specimen sampling was suboptimal since the healthy areas of the pathological-tendon may actually be sub-clinically diseased, as could the contralateral tendon in the same subject. Detection of inflammatory cells is most sensitive using immunohistochemistry targeting the cluster of differentiation markers, especially when compared to the conventional haematoxylin and eosin staining methods. The identified inflammatory cell types favour a chronic inflammatory process; which suggests a persistent stimulus. This means NSAID and glucocorticoids may be useful since they suppress inflammation, but it is noted that they may hinder tendon healing and cause long term problems. This systematic review demonstrates a diversity of data and conclusions in regard to inflammation as part of the pathogenesis of Tendinopathy, ranging from ongoing or chronic inflammation to non-inflammatory degeneration and chronic infection. Whilst various inflammatory markers are present in two thirds of the reviewed articles, the heterogenicity of data and lack of comparable studies means we cannot conclude a common pathophysiology from this systematic review.