Comparing Ultrasound-Guided Needling Combined With a Subacromial Corticosteroid Injection Versus High-Energy Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Calcific Tendinitis of the Rotator Cuff: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes after treatment with standardized high-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and ultrasound-guided needling (UGN) in patients with symptomatic calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff who were nonresponsive to conservative treatment.
The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial. The ESWT group received ESWT (2000 pulses, energy flux density 0.35 mJ/mm2) in 4 sessions with 1-week intervals. UGN was combined with a corticosteroid ultrasound-guided subacromial bursa injection. Shoulder function was assessed at standardized follow-up intervals (6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months) using the Constant Murley Score (CMS), the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, and visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction. The size, location, and morphology of the deposits were evaluated on radiographs. The a priori sample size calculation computed that 44 participants randomized in each treatment group was required to achieve a power of 80%.
Eighty-two patients were treated (56 female, 65%; mean age 52.1 ± 9 years) with a mean baseline CMS of 66.8 ± 12 and mean calcification size of 15.1 ± 4.7 mm. One patient was lost to follow-up. At 1-year follow-up, the UGN group showed similar results as the ESWT group with regard to the change from baseline CMS (20.9 vs 15.7; P = .23), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (-20.1 vs -20.7; P = .78), and visual analog scale for pain (-3.9 and -2.6; P = .12). The mean calcification size decreased by 13 ± 3.9 mm in the UGN group and 6.7 ± 8.2 mm in the ESWT group (<P = .001). In total, 22% of the UGN and 41% of the ESWT patients received an additional treatment during follow-up because of persistent symptoms.
This RCT compares the clinical and radiographic results of UGN and high-energy ESWT in the treatment of calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff. Both techniques are successful in improving function and pain, with high satisfaction rates after 1-year follow-up. However, UGN is more effective in eliminating the calcific deposit, and the amount of additional treatments was greater in the ESWT group.
II, randomized controlled trial.
Louwerens JKG
，Sierevelt IN
，Kramer ET
，Boonstra R
，van den Bekerom MPJ
，van Royen BJ
，Eygendaal D
，van Noort A
... -
《-》
Shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease with or without calcification.
Shock wave therapy has seen widespread use since the 1990s to treat various musculoskeletal disorders including rotator cuff disease, but evidence of its efficacy remains equivocal.
To determine the benefits and harms of shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease, with or without calcification, and to establish its usefulness in the context of other available treatment options.
We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP up to November 2019, with no restrictions on language. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved trials to identify potentially relevant trials.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that used quasi-randomised methods to allocate participants, investigating participants with rotator cuff disease with or without calcific deposits. We included trials of comparisons of extracorporeal or radial shock wave therapy versus any other intervention. Major outcomes were pain relief greater than 30%, mean pain score, function, patient-reported global assessment of treatment success, quality of life, number of participants experiencing adverse events and number of withdrawals due to adverse events.
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was shock wave therapy compared to placebo.
Thirty-two trials (2281 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Most trials (25) included participants with rotator cuff disease and calcific deposits, five trials included participants with rotator cuff disease and no calcific deposits, and two trials included a mixed population of participants with and without calcific deposits. Twelve trials compared shock wave therapy to placebo, 11 trials compared high-dose shock wave therapy (0.2 mJ/mm² to 0.4 mJ/mm² and above) to low-dose shock wave therapy. Single trials compared shock wave therapy to ultrasound-guided glucocorticoid needling, ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid injection, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS), no treatment or exercise; dual session shock wave therapy to single session therapy; and different delivery methods of shock wave therapy. Our main comparison was shock wave therapy versus placebo and results are reported for the 3 month follow up. All trials were susceptible to bias; including selection (74%), performance (62%), detection (62%), and selective reporting (45%) biases. No trial measured participant-reported pain relief of 30%. However, in one trial (74 participants), at 3 months follow up, 14/34 participants reported pain relief of 50% or greater with shock wave therapy compared with 15/40 with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.94); low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Mean pain (0 to 10 scale, higher scores indicate more pain) was 3.02 points in the placebo group and 0.78 points better (0.17 better to 1.4 better; clinically important change was 1.5 points) with shock wave therapy (9 trials, 608 participants), moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for bias). Mean function (scale 0 to 100, higher scores indicate better function) was 66 points with placebo and 7.9 points better (1.6 better to 14 better, clinically important difference 10 points) with shock wave therapy (9 trials, 612 participants), moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for bias). Participant-reported success was reported by 58/150 people in shock wave therapy group compared with 35/137 people in placebo group (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.91; 6 trials, 287 participants), low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). None of the trials measured quality of life. Withdrawal rate or adverse event rates may not differ between extracorporeal shock wave therapy and placebo, but we are uncertain due to the small number of events. There were 11/34 withdrawals in the extracorporeal shock wave therapy group compared with 13/40 withdrawals in the placebo group (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.31; 7 trials, 581 participants) low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision); and 41/156 adverse events with extracorporeal shock wave therapy compared with 10/139 adverse events in the placebo group (RR 3.61, 95% CI 2.00 to 6.52; 5 trials, 295 participants) low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Subgroup analyses indicated that there were no between-group differences in pain and function outcomes in participants who did or did not have calcific deposits in the rotator cuff.
Based upon the currently available low- to moderate-certainty evidence, there were very few clinically important benefits of shock wave therapy, and uncertainty regarding its safety. Wide clinical diversity and varying treatment protocols means that we do not know whether or not some trials tested subtherapeutic doses, possibly underestimating any potential benefits. Further trials of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease should be based upon a strong rationale and consideration of whether or not they would alter the conclusions of this review. A standard dose and treatment protocol should be decided upon before further research is conducted. Development of a core set of outcomes for trials of rotator cuff disease and other shoulder disorders would also facilitate our ability to synthesise the evidence.
Surace SJ
，Deitch J
，Johnston RV
，Buchbinder R
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
