Dataset Information

Does the Type of Extracorporeal Shock Therapy Influence Treatment Effectiveness in Lateral Epicondylitis? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been used in various musculoskeletal disorders, including lateral epicondylitis. However, in 2005, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that ESWT provides minimal or no benefit in terms of pain and function in patients with lateral epicondylitis. Since the review, several randomized controlled trials including different types of ESWT such as radial type for lateral epicondylitis have been published. Investigations of the effect modifiers such as symptom and follow-up duration on the effects of ESWT on lateral epicondylitis have not been performed.

Questions/purposes

(1) Does ESWT reduce pain and improve grip strength in patients with lateral epicondylitis? (2) Which type of ESWT, radial or focused, is more effective? (3) Is the duration of symptoms associated with the efficacy of ESWT for lateral epicondylitis? (4) Do improvements in pain scores remain in patients with longer follow-up?

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched up to July 2019 for articles published in English or Korean. Studies were included if patient allocation was randomized, the sample was composed of patients with lateral epicondylitis, interventions were ESWT (focused or radial), comparison group only received sham stimulation or no additional treatment, and the study outcome was pain intensity or grip strength. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Twelve studies including 1104 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The mean difference for pain reduction and improvement in grip strength was calculated.

Results

The meta-analysis showed no clinically important difference in the VAS score (2.48 ± 7.55 versus 3.17 ± 9.78, mean difference -0.68 [95% confidence interval -1.17 to -0.19]; p = 0.006) and grip strength (38.02 ± 70.56 versus 34.85 ± 108.26, mean difference 3.33 [95% CI 0.93 to 5.73]; p = 0.007) after ESWT relative to the comparison group's score. Even though radial ESWT showed more improvement than focused, the mean difference for VAS did not exceed the minimal clinically important differences threshold. There were no clinically important effects on the VAS scores of patients with lateral epicondylitis (2.78 ± 5.57 versus 3.92 ± 6.29, mean difference -1.13 [95% CI -1.84 to -0.42]; p = 0.002) and focused ESWT did not improve pain in patients with lateral epicondylitis. In the subgroup analysis, ESWT was effective in patients with a symptom duration of more than 6 months (2.28 ± 8.48 versus 3.31 ± 11.81, mean difference -0.95 [95% CI -1.75 to -0.15]; p = 0.02) but not for those with shorter symptom duration. The effects did not last beyond 24 weeks (2.52 ± 9.19 versus 3.34 ± 5.93, mean difference -0.82 [95% CI -2.57 to 0.93]; p = 0.36).

Conclusions

ESWT did not show clinically important improvement in pain reduction and grip strength. Radial ESWT, symptom duration of longer than 6 months, and short follow-up duration (less than 24 weeks) were related to better effects. Further studies are needed to determine the appropriate protocol and elucidate the effects according to the intervention type and specific disease condition.

Level of evidence

Level I, therapeutic study.

SUBMITTER: Yoon SY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7491893 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal disease. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy had shown an effect on osteoarthritis in both some animal experiments and clinical studies, but there was no systematic review to confirm the value of shockwave therapy in the treatment of all types of osteoarthritis and compare it with other traditional therapies (especially traditional Chinese medicine). Method:PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG database, and VIP database were searched up to December 10, 2019, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing shockwave therapy and other treatments for osteoarthritis. Visual analogue scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were extracted and analyzed by RevMan and STATA software as outcomes of pain reduction and functional improvement. Adverse reactions were recorded to evaluate the safety of shockwave therapy. Results:Shockwave therapy had significant improvement in both pain reduction and functional improvement compared with placebo, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, medication, and ultrasound (P < 0.05). In functional improvement, shockwave therapy showed statistical improvement compared with kinesiotherapy and moxibustion (P < 0.05) but not with acupotomy surgery (P = 0.24). A significant difference between shockwave therapy and platelet-rich plasma was observed in pain reduction (P < 0.05) but not in functional improvement (P = 0.89). Meanwhile, a statistical difference was found between shockwave therapy and fumigation in functional improvement (P < 0.05) but not in pain reduction (P = 0.26). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between shockwave therapy and manipulation in both pain reduction (P = 0.21) and functional improvement (P = 0.45). No serious adverse reaction occurred in all of studies. Conclusions:Extracorporeal shockwave therapy could be recommended in the treatment of osteoarthritis as a noninvasive therapy with safety and effectiveness, but the grade of recommendations needs to be discussed in a further study.

Project description:BackgroundLateral epicondylitis (LE) is a challenging condition for clinicians, and research has yet not proven the superiority of one specific treatment approach. However, manual therapy (elbow mobilization) in addition to eccentric exercise has been found to be superior to exercise alone. As well, acupuncture is effective in short-term pain relief when compared with sham treatment, but there is little knowledge on the comparative effectiveness of manual therapy and acupuncture treatment of LE in terms of pain relief. The primary objective of this pilot trial was to assess the feasibility (retention and adherence rates) of performing a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to explore the clinical effectiveness of acupuncture and manual therapy treatment of LE.MethodsThis pilot trial took place in an outpatient interdisciplinary institute of sports medicine and rehabilitation in Oslo, Norway. Thirty-six adults with clinically diagnosed LE were randomly allocated into one of three groups: eccentric exercise alone, eccentric exercise plus acupuncture, or eccentric exercise plus manual therapy for a 12-week treatment period. Primary outcomes were patient retention and adherence rates. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported pain (NRS), level of disability (Quick-DASH), and participant's satisfaction with treatment and global perceived effect.ResultsNine (69%) patients in the acupuncture group completed the 1-year follow-up, compared to eight (67%) in the manual therapy group and five (45%) in exercise alone. Our goal was to demonstrate a retention rate above 80% to avoid serious threats to validity, but the result was lower than expected. The majority of participants (64%) in both treatment groups received only three-treatment sessions; the reasons included non-attendance or recovery from pain. Secondary outcomes support the rationale for conduction of an RCT. There were no adverse advents related to study participation.ConclusionsBased on differences in pain relief between groups, patient retention, and adherence rates, an RCT seems to be feasible to assess treatment effectiveness more precisely. In a future definitive trial, greater dropout may be reduced by maintaining contact with the participants in the exercise alone group throughout the intervention, and objective assessments might be considered.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02321696.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on spasticity after upper motor neuron injury.DesignEight electronic databases were searched systematically from their inception to August 3, 2021, to provide robust evidence for the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for spasticity and range of motion after upper motor neuron injury. Study screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and evaluation of the certainty of evidence were performed independently by two independent reviewers. Data analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3.5 and R 3.6.1 software.ResultsForty-two studies with 1973 patients who met the eligibility criteria were selected from articles published from 2010 to 2021, of which 34 were included in the meta-analysis. A comparison intervention revealed that extracorporeal shock wave therapy significantly decreased the Modified Ashworth Scale score and increased the passive range of motion of a joint. Regarding the safety of extracorporeal shock wave therapy, slightly adverse effects, such as skin injury, bone distortion, muscle numbness, pain, petechiae, and weakness, were reported in five studies.ConclusionsExtracorporeal shock wave therapy may be an effective and safe treatment for spasticity after upper motor neuron injury. However, because of poor methodological qualities of the included studies and high heterogeneity, this conclusion warrants further investigation.To claim cme creditsComplete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME.Cme objectivesUpon completion of this article, the reader should be able to: (1) Determine the impact of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on spasticity after upper motor neuron injury; (2) Describe the factors that affect the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on spasticity; and (3) Discuss the mechanism of action of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on spasticity.LevelAdvanced.AccreditationThe Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Project description:BackgroundSpasticity is one of the manifestations of motor dysfunction in upper motor neuron syndrome, which is characterized by increased muscle tone. Spasticity seriously affects the motor function and activity of daily life of patients. Some studies have shown that extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) can relieve spasticity in recent years. However, the effectiveness and safety of ESWT on spasticity after motor neuron injury have not been confirmed. The purpose of this systematic review (SR) is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ESWT on spasticity after upper motor neuron injury.MethodsWe will search China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), Wan Fang Data, China Biology Medicine (CBM), PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science systematically from their inception dates through October 2019 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using ESWT to relieve spasticity in patients after upper motor neuron injury. The primary outcome will be the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). Secondary outcomes will include Composite Spasticity Scale (CSS), Spasm Frequency Scale, Modified Tardieu Scale (MTS), electrophysiological study (ratio of maximum H reflex to maximum M response, root mean square value, integrated electromyogram, co-contraction ratio, etc.), or other spasticity-related outcomes. In addition, adverse events will also be assessed as safety measurement. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment will be performed independently by 2 reviewers. Assessment of risk of bias and data synthesis will be performed using Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.3.5) and R (version 3.6.1) software.ResultsWe will synthesize current studies to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ESWT on spasticity after upper motor neuron injury.ConclusionOur study will provide evidence of ESWT on spasticity after upper motor neuron injury.Ethics and disseminationThe ethical approval is not required since SR is based on published studies. The results of this SR will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal according to the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.Prospero registration numberCRD42019131059.