| Literature DB >> 35814305 |
Lijun Shi1, Xu Yang2, Peixu Wang3, Xiangwei Ma4, Dan Li5, Xinjie Wu6, Fuqiang Gao3, Wei Sun3.
Abstract
Background: Multiple reports have demonstrated the therapeutic potential of extracorporeal shock wave (ESWT) in osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). However, few studies reported the changes in hip articular cartilage after the intervention. This study aimed to investigate the effect of ESWT on femoral head cartilage using a novel technique, quantitative T2-mapping magnetic resonance imaging.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35814305 PMCID: PMC9208945 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8609868
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Clin Pract ISSN: 1368-5031 Impact factor: 3.149
Figure 1Schematic diagrams (top) and magnetic resonance images (bottom) of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital classification of osteonecrosis of the femoral head based on the 3 pillars. Type M: necrosis involves the medial pillar (a). Type C: necrosis involves the medial and central pillars (b). Type L1: necrosis involves all 3 pillars, but the lateral pillar is partially preserved (c). Type L2: necrosis involves the entire lateral pillar and part of the central pillar (d). Type L3: necrosis involves all 3 pillars, including the cortical bone and marrow (e).
Figure 2Operation diagram of an extracorporeal shock wave for ONFH.
The baseline clinical status of the patients.
| Variables | ESWT group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 43/30 | 38/32 | 0.310 | 0.577 |
|
| 47.9 ± 15.3 | 46.0 ± 14.7 | 0.748 | 0.465 |
|
| 38/35 | 34/36 | 0.173 | 0.677 |
|
| 44.58 ± 4.99 | 45.04 ± 4.34 | 0.589 | 0.557 |
|
| 27.1 ± 4.6 | 27.6 ± 4.0 | −0.722 | 0.472 |
|
| 5.6 ± 6.0 | 5.7 ± 6.3 | 0.763 | 0.447 |
|
| 49.8 ± 5.6 | 50.8 ± 5.6 | −1.079 | 0.283 |
|
| ||||
|
| 28 | 22 | 1.875 | 0.599 |
|
| 18 | 24 | ||
|
| 14 | 11 | ||
|
| 13 | 13 | ||
|
| ||||
| Stage I | 5 | 4 | 0.813 | 0.666 |
| Stage II | 38 | 32 | ||
| Stage IIIA | 30 | 34 | ||
T2 changes of hip articular cartilage before and after treatment in both groups.
| Variables | ESWT group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 44.58 ± 4.99 | 45.04 ± 4.34 | 0.589 | 0.557 |
|
| 49.50 ± 4.94 | 52.99 ± 7.18 | 0.357 | 0.042 |
|
| 4.42 ± 7.04 | 7.85 ± 6.68 | −0.153 | 0.039 |
CJFH type changes before and after treatment in both groups.
| Variables | ESWT group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
| 28 | 22 | 1.875 | 0.599 |
|
| 18 | 24 | ||
|
| 14 | 11 | ||
|
| 13 | 13 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| 26 | 25 | 0.623 | 0.891 |
|
| 29 | 26 | ||
|
| 8 | 6 | ||
|
| 10 | 13 | ||
The size changes of necrotic lesions before and after treatment in both groups.
| Variables | ESWT group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size before treatment | 27.1 ± 4.6 | 27.6 ± 4.0 | −0.722 | 0.472 |
| Size after treatment (12 months) | 18.7 ± 7.5 | 20.7 ± 7.3 | −0.050 | 0.051 |
| Size changes (Δ) | 8.4 ± 7.4 | 6.9 ± 9.0 | −0.336 | 0.056 |
The changes of VAS before and after treatment in both groups.
| Variables | ESWT group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAS before treatment | 5.6 ± 0.6 | 5.7 ± 0.6 | 0.763 | 0.447 |
| VAS at 3 months | 3.6 ± 0.4 | 4.6 ± 0.5 | −0.286 | 0.021 |
| VAS at 6 months | 2.3 ± 0.5 | 3.1 ± 0.5 | 0.363 | 0.046 |
| VAS at 12 months | 1.5 ± 0.5 | 2.1 ± 0.5 | 0.494 | 0.078 |
Figure 3Histogram of VAS follow-up comparison between the two groups before and after treatment (ESWT group; control group).
The changes of HHS before and after treatment in both groups.
| Variables | ESWT group ( | Control group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HHS before treatment | 49.8 ± 5.6 | 50.8 ± 5.6 | −1.079 | 0.283 |
| HHS at 3 months | 75.0 ± 12.7 | 64.6 ± 10.1 | 0.218 | 0.028 |
| HHS at 6 months | 83.5 ± 13.4 | 75.7 ± 5.6 | −0.735 | 0.039 |
| HHS at 12 months | 88.7 ± 12.6 | 82.0 ± 7.7 | −0.879 | 0.381 |
Figure 4Follow-up comparison histogram of HHS between two groups before and after treatment (ESWT group; control group).