Dataset Information

High-energy versus low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: which is superior? A meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There are several treatment options for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder. The next step treatment after conservative treatment fails is still a matter of dispute. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been shown to be a good alternative to surgery, but the best treatment intensity remains unknown. High-energy ESWT is much more painful, more expensive, and usually is done in an inpatient setting, whereas low-energy ESWT can be performed in an outpatient setting by a physical therapist. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials was performed to answer two clear research questions: (1) Is there a greater increase in the Constant-Murley score in patients treated with high-energy ESWT compared with those treated with low-energy ESWT by 3 months and by 6 months? (2) Is there a greater chance of complete resorption of the calcifications in patients treated with high-energy ESWT compared with those treated with low-energy ESWT by 3 months and by 6 months? METHODS: Five relevant electronic online databases, Medline (through PubMed), EMBASE (through OVID), Cinahl (through EBSCO), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were systematically searched. We also crosschecked the reference lists of articles and reviews for possible relevant studies. Eligible for inclusion were all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared high-energy ESWT (> 0.28 mJ/mm(2)) with low-energy ESWT (< 0.08 mJ/mm(2)). One author examined titles and abstracts of each identified study to assess study eligibility. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and study quality. The primary outcome measure, the Constant-Murley score, was assessed by comparing mean functional outcome scores between the groups. Secondary outcomes were assessed using odds ratios, when appropriate data were pooled. Based on this process, five RCTs (359 participants) were included. RESULTS: All five RCTs showed greater improvement in functional outcome (Constant-Murley score) in patients treated with high-energy ESWT compared with patients treated with low-energy ESWT at 3 and 6 months. The 3-month mean difference was 9.88 (95% CI, 9.04-10.72, p < 0.001; 6-month data could not be pooled). Furthermore, high-energy ESWT more often resulted in complete resorption of the deposits at 3 months. The corresponding odds ratio was 3.40 (95% CI, 1.35-8.58) and p = 0.009 (6-month data could not be pooled). CONCLUSION: When shock wave therapy is chosen, high-energy shock wave therapy is more likely to result in improved Constant-Murley score and resorption of the deposits compared with low-energy therapy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

SUBMITTER: Verstraelen FU

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4117900 | biostudies-other | 2014 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-energy versus low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: which is superior? A meta-analysis.

Verstraelen F U FU In den Kleef N J H M NJ Jansen L L Morrenhof J W JW

Clinical orthopaedics and related research 20140529 9

<h4>Background</h4>There are several treatment options for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder. The next step treatment after conservative treatment fails is still a matter of dispute. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been shown to be a good alternative to surgery, but the best treatment intensity remains unknown. High-energy ESWT is much more painful, more expensive, and usually is done in an inpatient setting, whereas low-energy ESWT can be performed in an outpatient setting by a ...[more]

PMID: 24872197

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and local corticosteroid injection (LCI) for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), and some studies showed that the effect of ESWT was superior to LCI. We performed this meta-analysis to compare the clinical effects across the two therapies. METHODS:Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ESWT and LCI for the treatment of CTS were searched in electronic database. The Cochrane risk bias tool was used for quality assessment. After data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies, a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analyzed. The protocol for this systematic review was registered on INPLASY (202080025) and is available in full on the inplasy.com ( https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2020.8.0025 ) RESULTS: A total of 5 RCT studies with 204 patients were included from the electronic database. The meta-analysis results showed that two therapies were not significantly different in terms of visual analog scale (VAS) score (P = 0.65), Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BQ) score (P = 0.14), sensory distal latency (P = 0.66), and nerve conduction velocity (NCV) of the sensory nerve (P = 0.06). There were significant differences between the results of motor distal latency (P < 0.0001), compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitude (P < 0.00001), and sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) amplitude (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS:In terms of pain relief and function improvement, the effects of ESWT and LCI are not significantly different. In terms of electrophysiological parameters, LCI has a stronger effect on shortening motor distal latency; ESWT is superior to LCI in improving action potential amplitude. ESWT is a noninvasive treatment with fewer complications and greater patient safety. In light of the heterogeneity and limitations, these conclusions require further research for definitive conclusions to be drawn.

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.

Dataset Information

High-energy versus low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: which is superior? A meta-analysis.

Publications

High-energy versus low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: which is superior? A meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets