H van der Worp1, J Zwerver, M Hamstra, I van den Akker-Scheek, R L Diercks. 1. Center for Sports Medicine, University Center for Sport, Exercise and Health, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO BOX 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands, h.van.der.worp@umcg.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of focused shockwave therapy (FSWT) and radial shockwave therapy (RSWT) for treating patellar tendinopathy. METHODS: Patients were randomized into two groups. One group received three sessions of FSWT, and the other group received three sessions of RSWT. Both groups also received an eccentric training programme. Follow-up measurements took place 1, 4, 7 and 14 weeks after the final shockwave treatment. The primary outcome measure was the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Patella (VISA-P) questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures were pain during ADL, sports activities and the decline squat. RESULTS:Forty-three subjects (57 tendons) were included in the study. Twenty-one subjects (31 tendons) received FSWT, and 22 subjects (26 tendons) received RSWT. Both groups improved significantly on the VISA-P score, but there were no differences in improvement between the FSWT group (15 points on the VISA-P) and the RSWT group (9.6 points, n.s.). This was also the case for the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in effectiveness between FSWT and RSWT. It is therefore not possible to recommend one treatment over the other on grounds of outcome. Both groups improved significantly, although it is questionable whether this difference is clinically relevant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of focused shockwave therapy (FSWT) and radial shockwave therapy (RSWT) for treating patellar tendinopathy. METHODS:Patients were randomized into two groups. One group received three sessions of FSWT, and the other group received three sessions of RSWT. Both groups also received an eccentric training programme. Follow-up measurements took place 1, 4, 7 and 14 weeks after the final shockwave treatment. The primary outcome measure was the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Patella (VISA-P) questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures were pain during ADL, sports activities and the decline squat. RESULTS: Forty-three subjects (57 tendons) were included in the study. Twenty-one subjects (31 tendons) received FSWT, and 22 subjects (26 tendons) received RSWT. Both groups improved significantly on the VISA-P score, but there were no differences in improvement between the FSWT group (15 points on the VISA-P) and the RSWT group (9.6 points, n.s.). This was also the case for the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in effectiveness between FSWT and RSWT. It is therefore not possible to recommend one treatment over the other on grounds of outcome. Both groups improved significantly, although it is questionable whether this difference is clinically relevant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Kay M Crossley; Kaviraj Thancanamootoo; Ben R Metcalf; Jill L Cook; Craig R Purdam; Stuart J Warden Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Henk van der Worp; Johannes Zwerver; Inge van den Akker-Scheek; Ron L Diercks Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Alison Grimaldi; Rebecca Mellor; Paul Hodges; Kim Bennell; Henry Wajswelner; Bill Vicenzino Journal: Sports Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Piotr Król; Andrzej Franek; Jacek Durmała; Edward Błaszczak; Krzysztof Ficek; Barbara Król; Ewa Detko; Bartosz Wnuk; Lidia Białek; Jakub Taradaj Journal: J Hum Kinet Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 2.193
Authors: Christoph Schmitz; Nikolaus B M Császár; Stefan Milz; Matthias Schieker; Nicola Maffulli; Jan-Dirk Rompe; John P Furia Journal: Br Med Bull Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 4.291