Chun-De Liao1, Jau-Yih Tsauo, Hung-Chou Chen, Tsan-Hon Liou. 1. From the School and Graduate Institute of Physical Therapy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan (C-DL, J-YT); Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan (C-DL, H-CC, T-HL); Center for Evidence-Based Health Care, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan (H-CC); Graduate Institute of Injury Prevention and Control, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan (T-HL); and Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan (H-CC, T-HL).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy, including radial shock wave and focused shock wave types, is widely used for managing tendinopathies. The difference in efficacy between the 2 shock wave characteristics with different dosage levels remains controversial, and the purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine it for patients with lower-limb tendinopathy. DESIGN: A comprehensive search of online databases and search engines was performed. This study included randomized controlled trials reporting the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in treating lower-limb tendinopathy. The included randomized controlled trials were subjected to a meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: In total, 29 randomized controlled trials were included, all of which had a good methodological quality, with a PEDro score of ≥6/10. General extracorporeal shock wave therapy showed significant effects at the immediate follow-up [pain score: standardized mean difference = -1.41, 95% confidence interval = -2.01 to -0.82, P < 0.00001; function: standardized mean difference = 2.59, 95% confidence interval = 1.54 to 3.64, P < 0.00001] as well as at 3, 6, and ≥12 months. In sequence, high-dosage focused shock wave, high-dosage radial shock wave, and low-dosage radial shock wave had superior pooled effects on overall clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy exerted a positive overall effect on pain and function for lower-limb tendinopathy. Shock wave types and dosage levels may have different contributions to treatment efficacy. TO CLAIM CME CREDITS: Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME CME OBJECTIVES: Upon completion of this article, the reader should be able to: (1) Describe benefits of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for individuals with lower-limb tendinopathy; (2) Understand the impact of dosing and type of extracorporeal shock wave therapy has on treatment efficacy; and (3) Identify appropriate indications for incorporating extracorporeal shock wave therapy into the treatment plan for patients with lower-limb tendinopathy. LEVEL: Advanced ACCREDITATION: The 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.
OBJECTIVE: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy, including radial shock wave and focused shock wave types, is widely used for managing tendinopathies. The difference in efficacy between the 2 shock wave characteristics with different dosage levels remains controversial, and the purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine it for patients with lower-limb tendinopathy. DESIGN: A comprehensive search of online databases and search engines was performed. This study included randomized controlled trials reporting the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in treating lower-limb tendinopathy. The included randomized controlled trials were subjected to a meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: In total, 29 randomized controlled trials were included, all of which had a good methodological quality, with a PEDro score of ≥6/10. General extracorporeal shock wave therapy showed significant effects at the immediate follow-up [pain score: standardized mean difference = -1.41, 95% confidence interval = -2.01 to -0.82, P < 0.00001; function: standardized mean difference = 2.59, 95% confidence interval = 1.54 to 3.64, P < 0.00001] as well as at 3, 6, and ≥12 months. In sequence, high-dosage focused shock wave, high-dosage radial shock wave, and low-dosage radial shock wave had superior pooled effects on overall clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy exerted a positive overall effect on pain and function for lower-limb tendinopathy. Shock wave types and dosage levels may have different contributions to treatment efficacy. TO CLAIM CME CREDITS: Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME CME OBJECTIVES: Upon completion of this article, the reader should be able to: (1) Describe benefits of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for individuals with lower-limb tendinopathy; (2) Understand the impact of dosing and type of extracorporeal shock wave therapy has on treatment efficacy; and (3) Identify appropriate indications for incorporating extracorporeal shock wave therapy into the treatment plan for patients with lower-limb tendinopathy. LEVEL: Advanced ACCREDITATION: The 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.
Authors: Adam S Tenforde; Haylee E Borgstrom; Stephanie DeLuca; Molly McCormack; Mani Singh; Jennifer Soo Hoo; Phillip H Yun Journal: PM R Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 2.218
Authors: Magdalena Stania; Grzegorz Juras; Daria Chmielewska; Anna Polak; Cezary Kucio; Piotr Król Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 3.411