Chengxin Li1, Zhizhuo Li1, Lijun Shi2, Peixu Wang2, Fuqiang Gao3, Wei Sun3. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Peking University China-Japan Friendship School of Clinical Medicine, 2 Yinghuadong Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100029, China. 2. Department of Orthopedics, Graduate School of Peking Union Medical College, China-Japan Friendship Institute of Clinical Medicine, 2 Yinghuadong Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100029, China. 3. Beijing Key Laboratory of Immune Inflammatory Disease, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, 2 Yinghuadong Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100029, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The superiority of focused shockwave therapy (F-SWT) versus radial shockwave therapy (R-SWT) for treating noncalcific rotator cuff tendinopathies remains controversial. This study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of F-SWT versus R-SWT for the management of noncalcific rotator cuff tendinopathies. METHODS: A total of 46 patients affected by noncalcific rotator cuff tendinopathies were randomly divided into 2 groups of 23 individuals. Patients in group A received 4 sessions of F-SWT, while patients in group B were treated by 4 sessions of R-SWT. In each session, mean energy flux density (EFD) for F-SW 3000 shots was 0.09 ± 0.018 mJ/mm2 with 5.1 ± 0.5 Hz, while average pressure for R-SW 3000 shots was 4.0 ± 0.35 bar with 3.2 ± 0.0 Hz. Pain level and shoulder function were assessed with the numerical rating scale (NRS) and Constant-Murley Scale (CMS). The primary endpoint was the change in the mean NRS pain score from baseline to 24 weeks after the intervention. Secondary endpoints were changes in the mean NRS pain scores at all other follow-up points, changes in the mean CMS scores, and radiographic findings. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding NRS pain score and CMS score within 24 weeks after intervention (all p > 0.05). However, F-SWT resulted in significantly lower NRS compared with R-SWT at 24 weeks and 48 weeks after treatment (2.7 ± 1.0 vs. 4.5 ± 1.2 and 1.4 ± 1.0 vs. 3.0 ± 0.8, respectively, all p < 0.001). Similar results were found in CMS changes and radiographic findings. CONCLUSIONS: Both F-SWT and R-SWT are effective in patients with noncalcific rotator cuff tendinopathy. F-SWT proved to be significantly superior to R-SWT at long-term follow-up (more than 24 weeks). This trial is registered with ChiCTR1900022932.
BACKGROUND: The superiority of focused shockwave therapy (F-SWT) versus radial shockwave therapy (R-SWT) for treating noncalcific rotator cuff tendinopathies remains controversial. This study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of F-SWT versus R-SWT for the management of noncalcific rotator cuff tendinopathies. METHODS: A total of 46 patients affected by noncalcific rotator cuff tendinopathies were randomly divided into 2 groups of 23 individuals. Patients in group A received 4 sessions of F-SWT, while patients in group B were treated by 4 sessions of R-SWT. In each session, mean energy flux density (EFD) for F-SW 3000 shots was 0.09 ± 0.018 mJ/mm2 with 5.1 ± 0.5 Hz, while average pressure for R-SW 3000 shots was 4.0 ± 0.35 bar with 3.2 ± 0.0 Hz. Pain level and shoulder function were assessed with the numerical rating scale (NRS) and Constant-Murley Scale (CMS). The primary endpoint was the change in the mean NRS pain score from baseline to 24 weeks after the intervention. Secondary endpoints were changes in the mean NRS pain scores at all other follow-up points, changes in the mean CMS scores, and radiographic findings. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding NRS pain score and CMS score within 24 weeks after intervention (all p > 0.05). However, F-SWT resulted in significantly lower NRS compared with R-SWT at 24 weeks and 48 weeks after treatment (2.7 ± 1.0 vs. 4.5 ± 1.2 and 1.4 ± 1.0 vs. 3.0 ± 0.8, respectively, all p < 0.001). Similar results were found in CMS changes and radiographic findings. CONCLUSIONS: Both F-SWT and R-SWT are effective in patients with noncalcific rotator cuff tendinopathy. F-SWT proved to be significantly superior to R-SWT at long-term follow-up (more than 24 weeks). This trial is registered with ChiCTR1900022932.
Authors: Sebastian Farr; Florian Sevelda; Patrick Mader; Alexandra Graf; Gert Petje; Manuel Sabeti-Aschraf Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Xaver Feichtinger; Xavier Monforte; Claudia Keibl; David Hercher; Jakob Schanda; Andreas H Teuschl; Christian Muschitz; Heinz Redl; Christian Fialka; Rainer Mittermayr Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Mya Lay Sein; Judie Walton; James Linklater; Craig Harris; Tej Dugal; Richard Appleyard; Brent Kirkbride; Donald Kuah; George A C Murrell Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2007-02-08 Impact factor: 13.800
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: 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