Dataset Information

Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for knee tendinopathies and other soft tissue disorders: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT), which can be divided into radial shock-wave therapy (RaSWT) and focused shock-wave therapy (FoSWT), has been widely used in clinical practice for managing orthopedic conditions. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical efficacy of ESWT for knee soft tissue disorders (KSTDs) and compare the efficacy of different shock-wave types, energy levels, and intervention durations.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive search of online databases and search engines without restrictions on the publication year or language. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the efficacy of ESWT for KSTDs and included them in a meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment. The pooled effect sizes of ESWT were estimated by computing odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the treatment success rate (TSR) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs for pain reduction (i.e., the difference in pain relief, which was the change in pain from baseline to the end of RCTs between treatment and control groups) and for restoration of knee range of motion (ROM).

Results

We included 19 RCTs, all of which were of high or medium methodological quality and had a Physiotherapy Evidence Database score of ≥5/10. In general, ESWT had overall significant effects on the TSR (OR: 3.36, 95% CI: 1.84-6.12, P < 0.0001), pain reduction (SMD: - 1.49, 95% CI: - 2.11 to - 0.87, P < 0.00001), and ROM restoration (SMD: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.43-2.09, P < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses revealed that FoSWT and RaSWT applied for a long period (≥1 month) had significant effects on pain reduction, with the corresponding SMDs being - 3.13 (95% CI: - 5.70 to - 0.56; P = 0.02) and - 1.80 (95% CI: - 2.52 to - 1.08; P < 0.00001), respectively. Low-energy FoSWT may have greater efficacy for the TSR than high-energy FoSWT, whereas the inverse result was observed for RaSWT.

Conclusions

The ESWT exerts an overall effect on the TSR, pain reduction, and ROM restoration in patients with KSTDs. Shock-wave types and application levels have different contributions to treatment efficacy for KSTDs, which must be investigated further for optimizing these treatments in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Liao CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6090995 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To assess the safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave myocardial revascularization (ESMR) therapy in treating patients with refractory angina pectoris.A single-arm multicenter prospective trial to assess safety and efficacy of the ESMR therapy in patients with refractory angina (class III/IV angina) was performed. Screening exercise treadmill tests and pharmacological single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) were performed for all patients to assess exercise capacity and ischemic burden. Patients were treated with 9 sessions of ESMR to ischemic areas over 9 weeks. Efficacy end points were exercise capacity by using treadmill test as well as ischemic burden on pharmacological SPECT at 4 months after the last ESMR treatment. Safety measures included electrocardiography, echocardiography, troponin, creatine kinase, and brain natriuretic peptide testing, and pain questionnaires.Fifteen patients with medically refractory angina and no revascularization options were enrolled. There was a statistically significant mean increase of 122.3±156.9 seconds (38% increase compared with baseline; P=.01) in exercise treadmill time from baseline (319.8±157.2 seconds) to last follow-up after the ESMR treatment (422.1±183.3 seconds). There was no improvement in the summed stress perfusion scores after pharmacologically induced stress SPECT at 4 months after the last ESMR treatment in comparison to that at screening; however, SPECT summed stress score revealed that untreated areas had greater progression in ischemic burden vs treated areas (3.69±6.2 vs 0.31±4.5; P=.03). There was no significant change in the mean summed echo score from baseline to posttreatment (0.4±5.1; P=.70). The ESMR therapy was performed safely without any adverse events in electrocardiography, echocardiography, troponins, creatine kinase, or brain natriuretic peptide. Pain during the ESMR treatment was minimal (a score of 0.5±1.2 to 1.1±1.2 out of 10).In this multicenter feasibility study, ESMR seems to be a safe and efficacious treatment for patients with refractory angina pectoris. However, larger sham-controlled trials will be required to confirm these findings.

Project description:BackgroundTennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis is a common source of pain among craftsmen. Although it cannot be completely resolved, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and ultrasonics (US) have been found to be effective for tennis elbow as highlighted in previously published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reviews. However, the efficacy of these two therapies in treating tennis elbow is unknown. This meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of ESWT and US in relieving pain and restoring the functions of tennis elbow following tendinopathy.MethodsRCTs published in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and SpringerLink databases comparing ESWT and US in treating tennis elbow were identified by a software and manual search. The risk of bias and clinical relevance of the included studies were assessed. Publication bias was explored using funnel plot and statistical tests (Egger's test and Begg's test). The major outcomes of the studies were analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3.ResultsFive RCTs comprising five patients were included in the present meta-analysis. The results revealed a significantly lower VAS score of pain in the ESWT group (1 month: MD = 4.47, p = 0.0001; 3 months: MD = 20.32, p < 0.00001; and 6 months: MD = 4.32, p < 0.0001) compared to US. Besides, the grip strength was markedly higher 3 months after the intervention in ESWT (MD = 8.87, p < 0.00001) than in the US group. Although no significant difference was observed in the scores of the elbow function after 3 months of treatment (SMD = 1.51, p = 0.13), the subjective scores of elbow functions were found to be better in the ESWT group (SMD = 3.34; p = 0.0008) compared to the US group.ConclusionsAlthough there was no significant difference in the elbow function evaluation scores between ESWT and US, the superiority of the ESWT group in the VAS of pain (both at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months follow-ups) raised grip strength in ESWT group and the scores for subjective evaluation of efficacy indicated that ESWT offers more effective therapy for lateral epicondylitis than US therapy.