Physical therapy, corticosteroid injection, and extracorporeal shock wave treatment in lateral epicondylitis: Clinical and ultrasonographical comparison

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Versus Local Corticosteroid Injection for Chronic Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Chronic lateral epicondylitis (LE), normally known as tennis elbow, is often managed by conservative treatments. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and local corticosteroid injection (LCI) are among the most commonly used conservative treatments. However, the comparison between these two interventions remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of ESWT and LCI for chronic LE. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies until April 20, 2024. Meta-analyses were conducted using Manager V.5.4.1. Pooled effect sizes were expressed as the weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Compared with LCI, ESWT had inferior change in visual analogue scale (Δ VAS) (WMD, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.48; I2 = 20%; p < 0.001), Δ grip strength (WMD, -4.01; 95% CI, -5.57 to -2.44; I2 = 36%; p < 0.001), change in patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (Δ PRTEE) score (WMD, 8.64; 95% CI, 4.70 to 12.58; I2 = 0%; p < 0.001) at 1-month follow-up, but superior Δ VAS (WMD, -1.15; 95% CI, -1.51 to -0.80; I2 = 6%; p < 0.001), Δ grip strength (WMD, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.90 to 3.18; I2 = 3%; p = 0.0005), Δ PRTEE score (WMD, -9.50; 95% CI, -14.05 to -4.95; I2 = 58%; p < 0.001) at 3-month follow-up, and superior Δ VAS (WMD, -1.81; 95% CI, -2.52 to -1.10; I2 = 33%; p < 0.001), Δ grip strength (WMD, 3.06; 95% CI, 0.90 to 5.21; I2 = 0%; p = 0.005) at 6-month follow-up. The two groups had a similarly low rate of adverse events (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.05 to 8.60; I2 = 67%; p = 0.77), all of which were mild. Both ESWT and LCI are effective and safe in treating chronic LE. Compared with LCI, ESWT showed inferior short-term (1-month) but superior long-term (3-month and 6-month) outcomes regarding pain relief and function recovery, with a similar rate of mild adverse events.

Manual therapy and exercise for lateral elbow pain

BACKGROUND

Manual therapy and prescribed exercises are often provided together or separately in contemporary clinical practice to treat people with lateral elbow pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both for adults with lateral elbow pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and trial registries until 31 January 2024, unrestricted by language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Participants were adults with lateral elbow pain. Interventions were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both. Primary comparators were placebo or minimal or no intervention. We also included comparisons of manual therapy and prescribed exercises with either intervention alone, with or without glucocorticoid injection. Exclusions were trials testing a single application of an intervention or comparison of different types of manual therapy or prescribed exercises.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and numerical data, and assessed study risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The main comparisons were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both compared with placebo treatment, and with minimal or no intervention. Major outcomes were pain, disability, heath-related quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, participant withdrawals, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint was end of intervention for pain, disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success and final time point for adverse events and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three trials (1612 participants) met our inclusion criteria (mean age ranged from 38 to 52 years, 47% female, 70% dominant arm affected). One trial (23 participants) compared manual therapy to placebo manual therapy, 12 trials (1124 participants) compared manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to minimal or no intervention, six trials (228 participants) compared manual therapy and exercise to exercise alone, one trial (60 participants) compared the addition of manual therapy to prescribed exercises and glucocorticoid injection, and four trials (177 participants) assessed the addition of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to glucocorticoid injection. Twenty-one trials without placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection bias as participants were not blinded to the intervention. Other biases included selection (nine trials, 39%, including two quasi-randomised), attrition (eight trials, 35%) and selective reporting (15 trials, 65%) biases. We report the results of the main comparisons. Manual therapy versus placebo manual therapy Low-certainty evidence, based upon a single trial (23 participants) and downgraded due to indirectness and imprecision, indicates manual therapy may reduce pain and elbow disability at the end of two to three weeks of treatment. Mean pain at the end of treatment was 4.1 points with placebo (0 to 10 scale) and 2.0 points with manual therapy, MD -2.1 points (95% CI -4.2 to -0.1). Mean disability was 40 points with placebo (0 to 100 scale) and 15 points with manual therapy, MD -25 points (95% CI -43 to -7). There was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment to show if these effects were sustained, and no other major outcomes were reported. Manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both versus minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence indicates manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but the effects were not sustained, and there may be little to no improvement in health-related quality of life or number of participants reporting treatment success. We downgraded the evidence due to increased risk of performance bias and detection bias across all the trials, and indirectness due to the multimodal nature of the interventions included in the trials. At four weeks to three months, mean pain was 5.10 points with minimal treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced pain by a MD of -0.53 points (95% CI -0.92 to -0.14, I2 = 43%; 12 trials, 1023 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean disability was 63.8 points with minimal or no treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced disability by a MD of -5.00 points (95% CI -9.22 to -0.77, I2 = 63%; 10 trials, 732 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean quality of life was 73.04 points with minimal treatment on a 0 to 100 scale and prescribed exercises reduced quality of life by a MD of -5.58 points (95% CI -10.29 to -0.99; 2 trials, 113 participants). Treatment success was reported by 42% of participants with minimal or no treatment and 57.1% of participants with manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both, RR 1.36 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.93, I2 = 73%; 6 trials, 770 participants). We are uncertain if manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both results in more withdrawals or adverse events. There were 83/566 participant withdrawals (147 per 1000) from the minimal or no intervention group, and 77/581 (126 per 1000) from the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.12, I2 = 0%; 12 trials). Adverse events were mild and transient and included pain, bruising and gastrointestinal events, and no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events were reported by 19/224 (85 per 1000) in the minimal treatment group and 70/233 (313 per 1000) in the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 3.69 (95% CI 0.98 to 13.97, I2 = 72%; 6 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence from a single trial in people with lateral elbow pain indicates that, compared with placebo, manual therapy may provide a clinically worthwhile benefit in terms of pain and disability at the end of treatment, although the 95% confidence interval also includes both an important improvement and no improvement, and the longer-term outcomes are unknown. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials indicates that manual therapy and exercise may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but this may not be clinically worthwhile and these benefits are not sustained. While pain after treatment was an adverse event from manual therapy, the number of events was too small to be certain.

Comparative analysis of the therapeutic effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and high-intensity laser therapy in lateral epicondylitis: a randomised clinical trial

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) presents a substantial obstacle due to the pain and functional decline, frequently requiring non-surgical treatments. This study contrasts the efficacy of high-ıntensity laser therapy (HILT) and extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in managing LE. A prospective, randomized comparative trial was conducted with 50 participants assigned to either HILT or ESWT groups. Both groups received standard physiotherapy (exercise program and LE bandages), and outcomes, including tenderness, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scale (Q-DASH), and grip strength, were assessed at baseline, 3rd weeks, and 12th weeks. The baseline features of the groups exhibited similarities (p > 0.05). In intra-group comparisons, both HILT and ESWT groups exhibited significant enhancements in tenderness, VAS, Q-DASH, and grip strength (p < 0.05). In inter-group comparisons, the HILT group exhibited superior outcomes in tenderness reduction, pain alleviation, and disability improvement compared to the ESWT group (p < 0.05). Grip strength did not differ significantly across the groups (p > 0.05). Both HILT and ESWT, when combined with standard physiotherapy, showed effectiveness in treating LE. However, HILT demonstrated greater efficacy in terms of tenderness reduction, pain relief, and disability improvement. This study suggests that non-invasive techniques, particularly HILT, can be preferable for managing LE.

Effectiveness of non-invasive therapies on pain, maximum grip strength, disability, and quality of life for lateral elbow tendinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lateral elbow tendinopathy is a common musculoskeletal disorder. Effectiveness of non-invasive therapies for this health condition are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of non-invasive therapies on pain, maximum grip strength, disability, and quality of life for lateral elbow tendinopathy.

METHODS

Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus and PsycINFO without language or date restrictions up to May 3rd, 2023. Randomized trials investigating the effectiveness of any non-invasive therapy compared with control or other invasive interventions were included. Two independent reviewers screened eligible trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included trials and certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-two different therapies investigated in 47 randomized trials were included in the quantitative analysis. Moderate certainty evidence showed that betamethasone valerate medicated plaster may reduce disability (mean difference -6.7; 95% CI -11.4, -2.0) in the short-term when compared with placebo. Low certainty evidence showed that acupuncture may reduce disability (MD -9.1; 95% CI -11.7, -6.4) in the short-term when compared with sham. Moderate to very low certainty of evidence also showed small to no effect of non-invasive therapies on pain intensity, maximum grip strength, and disability outcomes in the short-term compared to control or invasive interventions. Most therapies had only very low certainty of evidence to support their use.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision-making processes for lateral elbow tendinopathy should be carefully evaluated, taking into consideration that most investigated interventions have very low certainty of evidence. There is an urgent call for larger high-quality trials.

Physical therapy intervention versus corticosteroid injection for lateral elbow tendinopathy. Does slow and steady win the race? - A systematic review

Background

Lateral elbow tendinopathy is one of the most common chronic and degenerative diseases which significantly affects quality of life and the activities of daily living of a person. The following is a systematic review reporting a comparison between physical therapy intervention and corticosteroid injection for the treatment of lateral elbow tendinopathy.

Method

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched using headings related to treatment options for Lateral elbow tendinopathy. The following keywords were used: lateral epicondylitis, physical therapy, and corticosteroid injection.

Result

We descriptively analyzed and reviewed a total of 12 studies including a total of 1253 patients for lateral elbow tendinopathy. The physical therapy intervention included interventions like electrotherapy, manual therapy, and exercise. The studies included had an overall low to unknown risk of bias.

Conclusion

Our review suggests corticosteroid injection provides beneficial short-term effects and physical therapy interventions provide intermediate to long-term effects, less additional treatment and low recurrence rate in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy. Although high-quality randomized control trials are required in order to have a better understanding of both intervention types.

MRI and Ultrasound Analysis of Corticosteroid Injection Combined with Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy in Lateral Epicondylitis—A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Objective: The knowledge about the effective implementation of corticosteroid injection and extracorporeal shockwave therapy on radiological changes in chronic lateral epicondylitis is lacking. Therefore, the objective of this study is to find and compare the effects of corticosteroid injection and extracorporeal shockwave therapy on radiological changes in chronic lateral epicondylitis. Methods: A randomized, double-blinded controlled study was conducted on 60 LE participants at a university hospital. The active extracorporeal shockwave therapy group (n = 30) received a corticosteroid injection with active extracorporeal shockwave therapy one session a week for 4 weeks, and the placebo extracorporeal shockwave therapy group received a corticosteroid injection with placebo extracorporeal shockwave therapy. The primary outcome was pain intensity, measured with the visual analog scale. The other outcome measures were the percentage of injury measured by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound, functional disability, handgrip strength, patient perception, kinesiophobia, depression status, and quality of life. Results: The between-group difference in pain intensity at 4 weeks was 1.4 (CI 95% 0.77 to 2.02), which shows more improvement in the active group than in the placebo group. Improvements in the effects were noted after 8 weeks and at 6 months (1.8; CI 95% 1.50 to 2.09) follow-up. Similar improvements were also found in the percentage of injury, functional disability, handgrip strength, patient perception, kinesiophobia, depression status, and quality of life. Conclusion: Extracorporeal shockwave therapy has added effects on corticosteroid injection for improving pain, percentage of injury, functional disability, handgrip strength, patient perception, kinesiophobia, depression status and quality of life in people with chronic lateral epicondylitis.

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Shows Superiority Over Injections for Pain Relief and Grip Strength Recovery in Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To examine the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and injection therapies by synthesizing direct and indirect evidence for all pairs of competing therapies for lateral epicondylitis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched for all appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs), assessing the effect of ESWT or injection therapies. The primary outcome was short-term (≤3 months) and medium-term (>3 months but ≤12 months) pain, while the secondary outcomes were grip strength and patient-reported outcome measures. All outcomes were assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities to determine a hierarchy of treatments. Sensitivity analysis was performed to eliminate potential therapeutic effects of normal saline (NS) and exclude trials that included patients with acute lateral epicondylitis (LE).

RESULTS

40 RCTs were included to evaluate ESWT and five different injection therapies, including corticosteroids (CSs), autologous whole blood, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A), and dextrose prolotherapy (DPT). DPT (-.78 [-1.34 to -.21]), ESWT (.57 [-.89 to -.25]), PRP (-.48 [-.85 to -.11]), and BoNT-A (-.43 [-.84 to -.02]) outperformed placebo for short-term pain relief; ESWT (-.44 [-.85 to -.04]) outperformed placebo for medium-term pain relief. DPT was ranked as the most optimal short-term and medium-term pain reliever (SUCRA, 87.3% and 98.6%, respectively). ESWT was ranked as the most optimal short-term and medium-term grip strength recovery (SUCRA; 79.4% and 86.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

DPT and ESWT were the best two treatment options for pain control and ESWT was the best treatment option for grip strength recovery. CSs were not recommended for the treatment of LE. More evidence is required to confirm the superiority in pain control of DPT among all these treatment options on LE.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, meta-analysis of Level I randomized controlled trials.

Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guidelines on the management of lateral epicondylitis of the humerus - Secondary publication

BACKGROUND

The guidelines presented herein provide recommendations for the management of patients with lateral epicondylitis of the humerus. These recommendations are endorsed by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) and Japan Elbow Society.

METHODS

The JOA lateral epicondylitis guideline committee revised the previous guidelines on the basis of the "Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014", which emphasized the importance of the balance between benefit and harm, and proposed a desirable method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan. These guidelines consist of 11 clinical questions (CQs), 9 background questions (BQs), and 3 future research questions (FRQs). For each CQ, outcomes from the literature were collected and evaluated systematically according to the adopted study design.

RESULTS

The committee proposed recommendations for each CQ by determining the level of evidence and assessing the consensus rate. Physical therapy was the best recommendation with the best evidence. The BQs and FRQs were answered by collecting evidence based on the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines presented herein were reviewed systematically, and recommendations were proposed for each CQ. These guidelines are expected to be widely used not only by surgeons or physicians but also by other healthcare providers, such as nurses, therapists, and athletic trainers.

Three Sessions of Radial Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Gives No Additional Benefit Over "Minimal-Dose" Radial Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Patients With Chronic Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome: A Double-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the outcomes following 3 weekly sessions of radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy (rESWT) in patients with chronic greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) presenting to an NHS Sports Medicine Clinic in the United Kingdom.

DESIGN

Double-blinded randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

A single NHS Sports Medicine Clinic, in the United Kingdom.

PATIENTS

One hundred twenty patients in an NHS Sports Medicine clinic presenting with symptoms of GTPS who had failed to improve with a minimum of 3 months of rehabilitation were enrolled in the study and randomized equally to the intervention and treatment groups. Mean age was 60.6 ± 11.5 years; 82% were female, and the mean duration of symptoms was 45.4 ± 33.4 months (range, 6 months to 30 years).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive either 3 sessions of ESWT at either the "recommended"/"maximally comfortably tolerated" dose or at "minimal dose." All patients received a structured home exercise program involving flexibility, strength, and balance exercises.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Follow-up was at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Outcome measures included local hip pain, validated hip PROMs (Oxford hip score, non-arthritic hip score, Victorian Institute of Sport assessment questionnaire), and wider measures of function including sleep (Pittsburgh sleep quality index) and mood (hospital anxiety and depression scale).

RESULTS

Results were available for 98% of patients at the 6-month period. There were statistically significant within-group improvements in pain, local function, and sleep seen in both groups. However, fewer benefits were seen in other outcome measures, including activity or mood.

CONCLUSION

There were no time × group interaction effects seen between the groups at any time point, indicating that in the 3 sessions, the "recommended-dose" rESWT had no measurable benefit compared with "minimal dose" rESWT in this group of patients with GTPS. The underlying reason remains unclear; it may be that rESWT is ineffective in the treatment of patients with chronic GTPS, that "minimal dose" rESWT is sufficient for a therapeutic effect, or that a greater number of treatment sessions are required for maximal benefit. These issues need to be considered in further research.

Comparison of the effectiveness of extensor muscle strengthening exercise by itself, exercise with polydeoxyribonucleotide injection, and exercise with extracorporeal shockwave therapy in lateral epicondylitis: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Extensor muscle strengthening exercises with counterforce braces (EX) is a conventional conservative treatment for lateral epicondylitis (LE) of the elbow. In addition, polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) or extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) has been recently used for LE.

Methods

Sixty-three patients with chronic LE participated in this study and randomly allocated in three groups (G1: EX, G2: EX+PDRN injection, and G3: EX+ESWT). All of the three groups were taught to perform EX at the first out-patient department (OPD) visit. Group 2 was injected with 3 mL PDRN (5.625 mg/3 mL), while group 3 received ESWT at the first OPD visit. Visual analog scale pain score, Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS), and ultrasonographic examination were checked before, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after the treatments.

Results

Overall functional scores and ultrasonographic findings in all three groups improved after treatment. The mean MEPS in group 2 improved more than groups 1 and 3 at 6 weeks (G1, 56.9>62.4; G2, 54.3>65.0; G3, 55.7>62.6), and more than group 1 at 12 weeks (G1, 56.9>67.9; G2, 54.3>73.6). The mean common extensor tendon depth (CETD) on ultrasonography in group 2 increased more than groups 1 and 3 at 6 and 12 weeks (6 weeks: G1, 0.385>0.386; G2, 0.332>0.392; G3, 0.334>0.357; 12 weeks: G1, 0.385>0.409; G2, 0.332>0.438; G3, 0.334>0.405 [cm]).

Conclusions

PDRN injections combined with EX exhibited a greater improvement in mean MEPS and mean CETD compared to EX only or EX combined with ESWT for LE within the 12 weeks follow-up.

Are there any changes in strength after the application of Kinesio taping in lateral epicondylalgia?

BACKGROUND

In 1973, Dr. Kenzo Kase developed Kinesio taping from the hypothesis that this external component could aid the functions of muscles and other tissues. There are different studies on this issue, but none has completely clarified the research question.

OBJECTIVE

To study the application of Kinesio taping in the variation of isometric muscle strength of the hand extension and grip, isokinetic strength of the pronation and supination movements, and the time it takes to reach that strength in patients with lateral epicondylalgia.

METHODS

An analytical, experimental, randomized study was carried out with 104 subjects with lateral epicondylalgia. The subjects were randomly distributed among two groups: one received Kinesio taping and the other a placebo material. A pre- and post-intervention measurement was performed. The post-measurement was carried out 24 hours later so as to completely eliminate the fatigue effect produced by the first day measurements, as well as to ensure that the intervention was effective, and not immediate. The measurements were made using a dynamometer.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the application of Kinesio taping and placebo material in subjects with lateral epicondylalgia regarding the variation of muscle strength in any of the study variables (p> 0.05 for all studied variables).

CONCLUSIONS

Kinesio taping produces no change in strength after application and exerts an effect similar to that of a placebo.

[Poor results and complications in the use of focused shockwaves and radial pressure waves in musculoskeletal pathology]

The application of focused shockwaves and radial pressure waves in musculoskeletal pathology has had a great development in the last decade. Although most of the publications have highlighted their safety and efficacy, poor results and complications can occur. This review analyzes the main causes of its poor results, adverse effects, and complications, emphasizing their prevention.

Clinical effectiveness of shockwave therapy in lateral elbow tendinopathy: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy compared with other interventions on pain, grip strength and disability in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library and clinical trial registries.

REVIEW METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy alone or as an additive intervention compared with sham or other interventions. Pain intensity, grip strength and elbow disability were used as primary outcome measures. We assessed methodological quality with the PEDro score and quality of evidence with the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies with 1871 patients were finally included. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy reduced pain intensity at mid-term follow-up (standardized mean difference: -1.21, 95% confidence interval:-1.53, -0.89, P < 0.001) and improved grip strength at very short- (mean difference:3.92, 95% confidence interval: 0.91, 6.94, P = 0.01) and short-term follow-up (mean difference:4.87, 95% confidence interval:2.24, 7.50, P < 0.001) compared with sham treatment. However, no clinically significant results were found between comparators in all outcomes and follow-up times. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy presented clinically better compared to Laser in grip strength at short-term (mean difference:3.50, 95% confidence interval:2.40, 4.60, P < 0.001) and ultrasound in pain intensity at very-short-term follow-up (standardized mean difference: -1.54, 95% confidence interval: -2.60, -0.48, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Low to moderate certainty of evidence suggests that there are no clinical benefits of extracorporeal shockwave therapy compared to sham interventions or corticosteroid injections. Based on very-low and moderate certainty of evidence, extracorporeal shockwave therapy outperforms against Laser and ultrasound, respectively.Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1a.

Comparing the efficacy of continuous and pulsed ultrasound therapies in patients with lateral epicondylitis: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

Objectives

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of continuous and pulsed ultrasound therapies in lateral epicondylitis.

Patients and methods

A total of 51 patients (18 males, 33 females; mean age: 46.52±6.16 years; range, 27 to 64 years) who were diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis between February 2013 and October 2014 were included. The patients were randomized to either continuous ultrasound (n=17), pulsed ultrasound (n=17), or placebo (n=17) groups. First group received 10 sessions of continuous ultrasound therapy. The second group received 10 sessions of pulsed ultrasound therapy in a ratio of 1:4. The third group received 10 sessions of placebo treatment. The pain levels of the patients were evaluated using Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The muscle strength was evaluated using a dynamometer. For functional evaluation, Duruöz’s Hand Index (DHI) and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) scales were used. Assessments were made at baseline, at the end of therapy, and one month after therapy. The thickness of the common extensor tendon was also measured using ultrasonic imaging at baseline and at the end of therapy.

Results

At the end of the study, there was a statistically significant improvement in the rest and activation VAS scores, and DHI and PRTEE scores in both continuous and pulsed ultrasound therapy groups, compared to placebo (p<0.05). However, no superiority was found between the continuous and pulsed ultrasound therapy groups (p>0.05). A statistically significant reduction in the common extensor tendon thickness was found only in the pulsed ultrasound therapy group (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Our study results show that both continuous and pulsed ultrasound applications are effective in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

Comparison of the clinical and sonographic effects of ultrasound therapy, extracorporeal shock wave therapy, and Kinesio taping in lateral epicondylitis

Background/aim

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and sonographic effects of the ultrasound (US) therapy, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), and Kinesio taping (KT) in the lateral epicondylitis (LE).

Materials and methods

A total of 40 patients with LE were included in the present study. The patients were randomly assigned to 3 treatment groups: US (n = 13), ESWT (n = 14), and KT (n = 13) groups.

Results

The visual analog scale (VAS) scores significantly decreased in all groups (P < 0.05). Grip strength significantly increased after 8 weeks in only the KT group (P < 0.05). The Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation Scale (PRTEE) scores significantly decreased after 2 weeks and after 8 weeks in the US group and ESWT groups, and after 8 weeks in the KT group (P < 0.05). Common extensor tendon (CET) thicknesses significantly decreased after 8 weeks in only the ESWT group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The US therapy, KT, and ESWT are effective in reducing pain and improving functionality. However, none of these treatment methods were found to be superior to others in reducing the pain and improving functionality.

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Lateral Epicondylitis, Lonely or in Combination with Topical Corticosteroid; Which Approach is Superior?

Background

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a common musculoskeletal disorder. Although varieties of modalities have been proposed for its treatment, the outcomes are uncertain, and the responses would diminish early by the time passage. The current study was aimed to assess the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) merely and in combination with topical corticosteroid for the treatment of LE.

Materials and Methods

In the current double-blinded randomized clinical trial, 70 patients with the diagnosis of LE were randomly allocated to two intervention groups of ESWT merely (control group) (n=35) or ESWT plus topical corticosteroid (intervention group) (n=35). The ESWT was performed weekly for three weeks. Topical clobetasol was utilized within 30 minutes before ESWT for the intervention group, while Vaseline gel was used in a similar pattern for controls. Pain based on a visual analog scale (VAS), handgrip strength (HGS) and the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) were assessed for the patients before the intervention, following the intervention cessation, and within two months post-intervention.

Results

Statistically significant improvement was found following both interventions in terms of pain, HGS, and function (P-value<0.001 for all), while the comparison of the two interventions, ESWT, merely versus in combination with topical clobetasol, revealed insignificant difference (P-value>0.05).

Conclusion

The findings of our study are in favor of ESWT use either merely or in combination with topical steroids for the treatment of LE, while the comparison of the two techniques revealed insignificant differences.

The Effect of Radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy in the Treatment of Trigger Finger

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT) on the treatment of trigger finger.

Methods

Eighteen patients, who were 2nd grade according to Quinnel classification and diagnosed with trigger finger, were included in this prospective cohort clinical study. The study consisted of only the experimental group and no control group. Eighteen patients with trigger fingers were applied to ten sessions, twice a week, for five weeks of rESWT (2000 impulses, 2 bar, 10 Hz). Pain scores (Numeric Pain Rating Scale), general functional capacity (Quick-DASH), range of motion, grip strength, and pinch strength were evaluated before treatment, after treatment, and three months after the treatment.

Results

Evaluation of ten sessions of rESWT that applied twice a week, for five weeks, was made before treatment, after treatment, and three months after the treatment. Statistical analyses were performed with the Friedman test. As a result of the analyses, there was a decrease in the pain levels (p < 0.001) and increase in general functional capacity, grip strength and pinch strength (p < 0.001), and range of motion (p < 0.001; p < 0.005). After the treatment and after three months, all outcome measures showed statistically significant improvements.

Conclusion

rESWT is an effective method to decrease pain severity and improve general functional capacity, range of motion, grip strength, and pinch strength in patients with trigger finger. We concluded that the treatment of rESWT might be a non-invasive option to treat the trigger finger. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to provide more evidence of this treatment

The effects of shockwave therapy on musculoskeletal conditions based on changes in imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Shockwave therapy (SWT) is a commonly used intervention for a number of musculoskeletal conditions with varying clinical outcomes. However, the capacity of SWT to influence pathophysiological processes and the morphology of affected tissues remains unclear. The objective of the current review is to evaluate changes in imaging outcomes of musculoskeletal conditions following SWT.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, CINAHL and SportDiscus was conducted from inception to October 2018. Prospective clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of SWT based on changes in imaging outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Articles were evaluated independently for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias list and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies. Random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression with a priori determined covariates was conducted for each condition to determine potential predictors of SWT effects.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies were included, with data from 27 studies available for effect size pooling. Meta-analyses and meta-regression on imaging outcomes were performed for rotator cuff calcific tendinitis (n = 11), plantar fasciitis (n = 7) and osteonecrosis of the femoral head (n = 9). There was an overall reduction in the size of measured lesion following SWT (MD 8.44 mm (95%CI -4.30, 12.57), p < 0.001) for calcium deposit diameter, (MD 0.92 mm (95%CI -0.03, 1.81), p = 0.04) for plantar fascia thickness and (MD 4.84% (95%CI -0.06, 9.75), p = 0.05) for lesion size in femoral head osteonecrosis. Meta-regression showed no influence of SWT dosage parameters, however, baseline lesion size was an independent predictor for changes in imaging outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

SWT altered the morphology of musculoskeletal conditions, potentially reflecting changes in underlying pathophysiological processes. The parameters of SWT dosage are not significant predictors of changes in imaging outcomes. Lack of adequate reporting of imaging outcomes limited the conclusions that could be drawn from the current review. Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42018091140.

Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a common elbow problem. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) was widely used in the treatment of LE and has been shown to relieve the pain and functional impairment (loss of grip strength) caused by tennis elbow. However, the evidence with regard to whether ESWT has better clinical efficacy over other method is not clear. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of ESWT with other techniques in the treatment of LE.

Methods

Literature searches of PubMed, OVID, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched up to 30^th June, 2019. Only RCTs comparing ESWT with other methods for LE were included. Data collection and extraction, quality assessment, and data analyses were performed according to the Cochrane standards.

Results

A total of 13 articles with 1035 patients were included. Of which, 501 underwent ESWT and 534 underwent other methods. The result of meta-analysis showed that pooled VAS (P = 0.0004) and grip strength (P < 0.00001) were better in the ESWT group.

Conclusion

Based on the existing clinical evidence, extracorporeal shock wave therapy can effectively relieve the pain and functional impairment (loss of grip strength) caused by tennis elbow, with better overall safety than several other methods. However, owing to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality RCTs are needed to support the trend towards better functional outcomes with ESWT.

Comparison of radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy with ultrasound therapy in patients with lateral epicondylitis

PURPOSE

Patients suffering from lateral epicondylitis exhibit diminished mobility due to pain. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of both shockwave and ultrasound therapies in patients with lateral epicondylitis.

METHODS

The shockwave group consisted of 117 patients, 63 patients constituted the ultrasound group, and 18 patients made up the control group. The "University of Peloponnese Pain, Functionality and Quality of Life Questionnaire" was used for the evaluation of pain, functionality, and quality of life on a five-point Likert scale, pre-treatment, post-treatment, and at 4-week follow-up.

RESULTS

The pain was reduced and the functionality and quality of life were improved in both the shockwave and ultrasound groups post-treatment (p < 0.001) and at 4-week follow-up (p < 0.001), but the results in the ultrasound group were not as pronounced as in the shockwave group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both radial shockwave and ultrasound therapies were significantly effective in patients with lateral epicondylitis. However, ultrasound therapy was less effective than shockwave therapy.

Assessment of common extensor tendon elasticity in patients with lateral epicondylitis using shear wave elastography

Background

To investigate the role of shear wave elastography (SWE) in patients with lateral epicondylitis (LE) by assessing the common extensor tendon (CET) elasticity.

Methods

A total of 62 unilateral LE patients were enrolled. Shear wave speed (SWS) and the thickness of CET in both elbows, along with the involved elbows with pre- and post-treatment, were obtained by SWE. The differences between groups, inter- and intra-observer agreements, and diagnostic accuracy were analyzed with a paired t-test, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve, respectively.

Results

LE patients had significantly lower SWS on lesion sides compared to healthy elbows (P<0.05). The SWS of involved elbows were significantly higher after non-operation treatment than before treatment. The inter- and intra-observer agreements were excellent (ICCs: 0.900-0.993) for SWE measurements. Moreover, a 12.2 m/s cutoff value of mean SWS (C _mean) for discriminating LE patients from healthy subjects revealed a sensitivity and specificity of 93% and 93%, respectively.

Conclusions

SWE is a valid imaging technique for the diagnosis of LE and monitoring of the treatment effect. Future studies are essential for investigating the correlations among clinical examinations, conventional ultrasound, and SWE.

Shock-wave therapy versus corticosteroid injection on lateral epicondylitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: Shock-wave (SW) therapy has been widely promoted and proven to be effective in ameliorating symptoms of lateral epicondylitis (LE) during recent years. Corticosteroid (CS) injection is another common treatment of LE, and several researches have documented its significant effect in the treatment of LE. Despite this, few studies have focused on comparing the use of SW and CS in the treatment of LE. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess whether SW is superior to CS in managing LE, both in terms of ameliorating pain and improving functionality. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify relevant articles that were published in Pubmed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, SpringerLink, Clinical Trials.gov and OVID from the databases' inception to December 2018. All studies comparing the efficacy of SW and CS in terms of pain levels and functionality improvement were included. Data on the two primary outcomes were collected and analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3. Results: Four studies were included in the current meta-analysis. A significant difference in VAS score (SMD = 1.13, Cl 0.72-1.55 P < 0.00001, I² = 0) was noted between the SW group and the CS group. Furthermore, Significant difference was also seen in the term of grip strength (including HGS and GSS scoring system) (SMD = -1.42, Cl -1.85--0.98 P < 0.00001, I² = 0). Conclusions: In light of the better improvement in the terms of VAS and grip strength with follow-up more than 12 weeks, we assume that SW may be a superior alternative for the treatment of LE.

A comparative study of the efficacy of ultrasonics and extracorporeal shock wave in the treatment of tennis elbow: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis is a common source of pain among craftsmen. Although it cannot be completely resolved, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and ultrasonics (US) have been found to be effective for tennis elbow as highlighted in previously published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reviews. However, the efficacy of these two therapies in treating tennis elbow is unknown. This meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of ESWT and US in relieving pain and restoring the functions of tennis elbow following tendinopathy.

METHODS

RCTs published in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and SpringerLink databases comparing ESWT and US in treating tennis elbow were identified by a software and manual search. The risk of bias and clinical relevance of the included studies were assessed. Publication bias was explored using funnel plot and statistical tests (Egger's test and Begg's test). The major outcomes of the studies were analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Five RCTs comprising five patients were included in the present meta-analysis. The results revealed a significantly lower VAS score of pain in the ESWT group (1 month: MD = 4.47, p = 0.0001; 3 months: MD = 20.32, p < 0.00001; and 6 months: MD = 4.32, p < 0.0001) compared to US. Besides, the grip strength was markedly higher 3 months after the intervention in ESWT (MD = 8.87, p < 0.00001) than in the US group. Although no significant difference was observed in the scores of the elbow function after 3 months of treatment (SMD = 1.51, p = 0.13), the subjective scores of elbow functions were found to be better in the ESWT group (SMD = 3.34; p = 0.0008) compared to the US group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was no significant difference in the elbow function evaluation scores between ESWT and US, the superiority of the ESWT group in the VAS of pain (both at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months follow-ups) raised grip strength in ESWT group and the scores for subjective evaluation of efficacy indicated that ESWT offers more effective therapy for lateral epicondylitis than US therapy.

Comparison of ultrasound and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in lateral epicondylosis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and therapeutic ultrasound (US) in the treatment of lateral epicondylosis (LE).

METHODS

Our study enrolled 50 patients with LE. Patients were randomized into two groups. Group 1 underwent therapeutic US (n = 24; 5 males and 15 females; mean age: 43.75 ± 4.52) Group 2 underwent ESWT (n = 20; 8 males and 16 females; mean age: 46.04 ± 9.24). Patients were evaluated at baseline, after treatment,and 1 month following treatment. The outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS), algometer, grip dynamometer, quick-disability of the arm,shoulder,and hand (QDASH), patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey questionnairre.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significant improvements in terms of VAS (all p values < 0.0001), dynamometer (p = 0.001 vs p = 0.015), algometer (all p values < 0.0001), PRTEE (all p values < 0.0001), QDASH (all p values < 0.0001), and SF-36 scores (p = 0.001 vs p = 0.005) within time. There was no significant difference between the two groups, except algometer scores in favor of ESWT (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

ESWT and therapeutic US are equally effective in treating LE. ESWT is an alternative therapeutic intervention and as effective as US.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Therapeutic study.

Comparison of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy and wrist-extensor splint application in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a prospective randomized controlled study

Background

Extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT) and wrist-extensor splints (WESs) are two commonly used methods in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. In this study, the efficacy of these two methods was compared.

Methods

The study was planned as a prospective randomized controlled study. A total of 67 patients were enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 received ESWT (32 patients) and group 2 received WES (35 patients). Patients in group 1 underwent four sessions of ESWT once every week. In each session, an ESWT device at 10–12 Hz, 2,000 pulses, and 1.6–1.8 bar pressure was used. Patients in group 2 used a wrist splint, holding the wrist at 30°–45° extension for 4 weeks. Patients were assessed for handgrip strength, pain at rest, pain while working, and quality of life. Data were collected before and after treatment (at weeks 4, 12, and 24). A visual analog scale was used to evaluate pain at rest and while working, a hand dynamometer for handgrip strength, subscales of the SF36 Health Survey to evaluate quality of life, and the Turkish version of the patient-rated tennis-elbow evaluation was used to evaluate functioning of the affected arm during various daily life activities.

Results

In both ESWT and WES groups, although there were considerably significant improvements (P<0.001) in the parameters evaluated (pain at rest and while working, handgrip strength, Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation, Nirschl score, and SF36 subscales) were observed at 4, 12, and 24 weeks compared to pretreatment values, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of our evaluation parameters at the three time points (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Both ESWT and WES applications were found to yield significantly superior results when compared to pretreatment values. In comparison of the two groups, on the other hand, there was no statistically significant difference.

Radial shockwave and ultrasound in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis – a preliminary report

Introduction: Lateral epicondylitis can be resistant to treatment that usually involves the use of conservative therapies, including physical modalities such as radial shockwave and ultrasound. Studies show that both modalities are efficacious but their results are inconsistent. The optimal parameters for applying them are also yet to be determined. This trial was designed to analyse and compare the efficacy of radial shock wave and ultrasound as therapies for treating patients with lateral epicondylitis. Material and methods: The trial was conducted with 26 patients with lateral epicondylitis divided into two comparative groups (A and B), each consisting of 13 patients. The groups were treated with radial shockwave and ultrasound, respectively. In both of them, changes in patients’ rest pain, night pain, pain during activity, and hand grip strength were evaluated, as well as the efficacy of both therapies. Results: The intensity of all types of pain decreased over the course of the study in both groups and patients’ grip strength gradually improved. The groups were comparable in terms of percentage change in the analysed parameters and the distribution of patients’ self-assessments of treatment efficacy. Conclusions: Radial shockwave and ultrasound show comparable efficacy in treating lateral epicondylitis. They are particularly effective in reducing pain intensity and increasing the hand grip strength of the affected extremity.

EFFICACY OF ESWT FOR LATERAL EPICONDYLITIS TREATMENT: COMPARISON WITH PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a common condition characterized by pain in the lateral side of the elbow with tenderness on lateral epicondyle, caused by repetetive overuse of extensor muscles of the wrist. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) is used in musculoskeletal problems with the possible mechanism of action including hyperstimulation analgesia, neovascularization and induction of healing process. LE generally responds well to conservative treatment. One of the widely used and accepted terms of treatment for LE is physical therapy (PT). In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of ESWT for LE treatment with conventional therapy modalities. This is a prospective randomized study with 73 patients with elbow pain and otherwise healthy, diagnosed as LE. Patients were randomized to two groups to receive either ESWT weekly for 3 weeks or PT for 10 days. Our analysis revealed similar treatment success rates for both groups in many of the evaluation parameters. As a result of our study we were unable to display a major difference between the short-term outcome for two options. However, ESWT still has the advantage of being less time consuming for both the patient and the doctor, an important parameter we believe.

Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Acupuncture Effect on Common Extensor Tendon Thickness in Patients with Lateral Epicondylitis: A Randomized Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the effect of acupuncture on common extensor tendon (CET) thickness in patients with lateral epicondylitis (LE). Additionally, to identify whether clinical and ultrasonographic changes showed any correlation.

METHODS

Forty-one patients were randomly assigned to acupuncture and control groups. Conventional treatment (rest, NSAİİ, bracing, exercise) methods for LE were applied to all patients. In addition to this, the acupuncture treatment was applied to the acupuncture group. The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, the Duruoz Hand Index (DHI) for functioning of the affected limb, the pressure pain threshold, and CET thickness (via ultrasound imaging) were assessed before and end of the treatment in both groups.

RESULTS

The VAS and DHI scores in both groups decreased. The pressure pain threshold and CET thickness only demonstrated improvement in the acupuncture group.

CONCLUSION

These findings show that the CET thickness was reduced after 10 sessions of acupuncture treatment in LE patients.

Comparison of the effectiveness of local corticosteroid injection and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in patients with lateral epicondylitis

[Purpose] This study aimed to determine and compare the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and local corticosteroid injection in patients with lateral epicondylitis. [Subjects and Methods] Sixty-four patients with lateral epicondylitis were randomly divided into extracorporeal shock wave therapy and steroid injection groups. Patients were evaluated using hand grip strength, visual analog scale, and short-form McGill pain questionnaire at baseline and at 4 and 12 weeks post-treatment. [Results] Both groups showed statistically significant increase in hand grip strength and decreases on the visual analog scale and short form McGill pain questionnaire overtime. There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of improvement in hand grip strength and on the short-form McGill pain questionnaire between groups at 4 weeks post-treatment, whereas the extracorporeal shock wave therapy group showed better results on the visual analog scale. The percentages of improvements in all 3 parameters were higher in the extracorporeal shock wave therapy group than in the injection group at 12 weeks post-treatment. [Conclusion] Both the extracorporeal shock wave therapy and steroid injection were safe and effective in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. However, extracorporeal shock wave therapy demonstrated better outcomes than steroid injection at the long-term follow-up.

What is the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for tendinopathy? An overview of systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness and systematic review of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is a common complaint causing characteristic pain in the lateral elbow and upper forearm, and tenderness of the forearm extensor muscles. It is thought to be an overuse injury and can have a major impact on the patient's social and professional life. The condition is challenging to treat and prone to recurrent episodes. The average duration of a typical episode ranges from 6 to 24 months, with most (89%) reporting recovery by 1 year.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence concerning the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for LET.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive search was conducted from database inception to 2012 in a range of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to summarise the current evidence concerning the clinical effectiveness and a systematic review for the cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for LET. We identified additional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that could contribute further evidence to existing systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and other important databases from inception to January 2013.

RESULTS

A total of 29 systematic reviews published since 2003 matched our inclusion criteria. These were quality appraised using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist; five were considered high quality and evaluated using a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A total of 36 RCTs were identified that were not included in a systematic review and 29 RCTs were identified that had only been evaluated in an included systematic review of intermediate/low quality. These were then mapped to existing systematic reviews where further evidence could provide updates. Two economic evaluations were identified.

LIMITATIONS

The summary of findings from the review was based only on high-quality evidence (scoring of > 5 AMSTAR). Other limitations were that identified RCTs were not quality appraised and dichotomous outcomes were also not considered. Economic evaluations took effectiveness estimates from trials that had small sample sizes leading to uncertainty surrounding the effect sizes reported. This, in turn, led to uncertainty of the reported cost-effectiveness and, as such, no robust recommendations could be made in this respect.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical effectiveness evidence from the high-quality systematic reviews identified in this overview continues to suggest uncertainty as to the effectiveness of many conservative interventions for the treatment of LET. Although new RCT evidence has been identified with either placebo or active controls, there is uncertainty as to the size of effects reported within them because of the small sample size. Conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness are also unclear. We consider that, although updated or new systematic reviews may also be of value, the primary focus of future work should be on conducting large-scale, good-quality clinical trials using a core set of outcome measures (for defined time points) and appropriate follow-up. Subgroup analysis of existing RCT data may be beneficial to ascertain whether or not certain patient groups are more likely to respond to treatments.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003593.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Mechanical Stimulation (Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields "PEMF" and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy "ESWT") and Tendon Regeneration: A Possible Alternative

The pathogenesis of tendon degeneration and tendinopathy is still partially unclear. However, an active role of metalloproteinases (MMP), growth factors, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and a crucial role of inflammatory elements and cytokines was demonstrated. Mechanical stimulation may play a role in regulation of inflammation. In vitro studies demonstrated that both pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) and extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) increased the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokine such as interleukin (IL-6 and IL-10). Moreover, ESWT increases the expression of growth factors, such as transforming growth factor β(TGF-β), (VEGF), and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), as well as the synthesis of collagen I fibers. These pre-clinical results, in association with several clinical studies, suggest a potential effectiveness of ESWT for tendinopathy treatment. Recently PEMF gained popularity as adjuvant for fracture healing and bone regeneration. Similarly to ESWT, the mechanical stimulation obtained using PEMFs may play a role for treatment of tendinopathy and for tendon regeneration, increasing in vitro TGF-β production, as well as scleraxis and collagen I gene expression. In this manuscript the rational of mechanical stimulations and the clinical studies on the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave (ESW) and PEMF will be discussed. However, no clear evidence of a clinical value of ESW and PEMF has been found in literature with regards to the treatment of tendinopathy in human, so further clinical trials are needed to confirm the promising hypotheses concerning the effectiveness of ESWT and PEMF mechanical stimulation.

Focused and Radial Shock Wave Therapy in the Treatment of Tennis Elbow: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Study

The purpose of this article was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of radial and focused shock wave therapies applied to treat tennis elbow. Patients with tennis elbow were randomized into two comparative groups: focused shock wave therapy (FSWT; n=25) and radial shock wave therapy (RSWT; n=25). Subjects in the FSWT and RSWT groups were applied with a focused shock wave (3 sessions, 2000 shocks, 4 Hz, 0.2 mJ/mm²) and a radial shock wave (3 sessions, 2000 + 2000 shocks, 8 Hz, 2.5 bar), respectively. The primary study endpoints were pain relief and functional improvement (muscle strength) one week after therapy. The secondary endpoint consisted of the results of the follow-up observation (3, 6 and 12 weeks after the study). Successive measurements showed that the amount of pain patients felt decreased in both groups. At the same time grip strength as well as strength of wrist extensors and flexors of the affected extremity improved significantly. Both focused and radial shock wave therapies can comparably and gradually reduce pain in subjects with tennis elbow. This process is accompanied by steadily improved strength of the affected extremity.

Lateral epicondylitis: This is still a main indication for extracorporeal shockwave therapy

Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) is used in a number of indications in the medical field. A number of tendinopathies show good and excellent results due to evidence based medicine. The treatment of lateral epicondylitis is known to show conflicting results. This overview of the published RCT's on ESWT for lateral epicondylitis tries to show the reasons for this conflicting data-base and point out, why we think that this is still a main indication for extracorporeal shockwave therapy.

Quality of research and quality of reporting in elbow surgery trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are high in the hierarchy of scientific evidence, but possible sources of bias should be identified or even excluded. This systematic review assessed the methodologic quality and the quality of reporting of the RCTs on the treatment of elbow pathology.

METHODS

A systematic review of RCTs was performed on the treatment of elbow pathology. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant trials. Thirty-five of the initial 540 articles being an (pseudo) RCT on invasive treatment of elbow pathology in humans were included. These were scored with the use of an adapted Checklists to Evaluate A Report of a Nonpharmacologic Trial (CLEAR-NPT). To assess quality of reporting, points were administered to the articles based on the results from CLEAR-NPT list. The highest possible score for quality is 26 points.

RESULTS

The average quality score was 18.1 points (range, 10-25 points). The mean scores were 19.5 for trials published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, 19.8 for those published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and 20.3 for those published in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The most important finding was that the overall quality and the quality of reporting has not improved over the years and that the overall quality of the selected studies and the quality of reporting in these trials is not related to the journal they are published in.

Short- to mid-term follow-up effectiveness of US-guided focal extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the treatment of elbow lateral epicondylitis

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis of the elbow is a common and disabling overuse syndrome. Several treatment modalities are currently available for this condition, but the optimal treatment method remains undefined. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been widely used in the last 10 years, although conflicting results are present in the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, we evaluated 36 patients (37 elbows), with a mean follow-up time of 24.8 months. Focal ESWT was administered by means of an electromagnetic generator equipped with in-line ultrasound guidance, during one or more cycles of 3-4 weekly sessions. In the setting of the study, patients were clinically evaluated and subjective satisfaction and rate of relapse were investigated.

RESULTS

A positive response was described in 75.7 % of the patients after treatment. Mean quickDASH score and VAS attested at 5.5 and 1.1, respectively. Roles and Maudsley score was rated as I or II in 33 cases. Four patients resulted not responders to the therapy, while 5 patients complained one or more episodes of symptoms relapse. No influence on the final outcome was evident with respect to demographic features and previous therapies as well. Response rate to further ESWT cycles in patients refractory to the first cycle of ESWT was 33.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal ESWT represents a valuable and safe solution in case of elbow lateral epicondylitis, both in newly diagnosed and previously treated cases, representing a definitive treatment in the majority of patients. Patients refractory to a 3- to 4-session ESWT cycle have lower chances of positive response after further ESWT cycles.

Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for orthopedic conditions: a systematic review on studies listed in the PEDro database

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is an effective and safe non-invasive treatment option for tendon and other pathologies of the musculoskeletal system.

SOURCES OF DATA

This systematic review used data derived from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; www.pedro.org.au, 23 October 2015, date last accessed).

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

ESWT is effective and safe. An optimum treatment protocol for ESWT appears to be three treatment sessions at 1-week intervals, with 2000 impulses per session and the highest energy flux density the patient can tolerate.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

The distinction between radial ESWT as 'low-energy ESWT' and focused ESWT as 'high-energy ESWT' is not correct and should be abandoned.

GROWING POINTS

There is no scientific evidence in favour of either radial ESWT or focused ESWT with respect to treatment outcome.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Future randomized controlled trials should primarily address systematic tests of the aforementioned optimum treatment protocol and direct comparisons between radial and focused ESWT.

Effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on functional and strength recovery of handgrip in patients affected by epicondylitis

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is effective in the treatment of tendinopathy. We designed a prospective observational clinical study to assess the correlation between clinical and functional measures and recovery of strength after ESWT for epicondylitis. We analyzed 26 patients. We measured progressive improvement in visual analogue scale values (p < 0.0005) and Mayo Elbow Performance Index scores (p = 0.004) for the pathologic limb. Monitoring of handgrip failed to reveal changes in values at any follow-up (p > 0.05). We found no correlation between degree of clinical function and muscle deficit during follow-up. After ESWT, there was a tendency toward a decrease in grip strength, especially in the dominant limb. This could be related to the effects of ESWT, which reduces spasticity in painful hypertonic muscles. These data may be useful in defining the expectations for function during ESWT for epicondylitis, particularly for elite athletes.

Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis

OBJECTIVE:

Lateral epicondylitis is one of the widely seen lesions of the arm characterized by pain localized over lateral epicondyle which is the insertion site of the wrist extensors, and extensor muscles of the forearm. It is easy to diagnose lateral epicondylitis but treatment involves some inherent drawbacks. Conservative management includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, ultrasound therapy, steroid injections, functional bracing, laser therapy and extracorporeal shock wave therapy, however none of these modalities have been shown to be really effective based on evidence-based data. Our study is aimed to determine the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) therapy in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

METHODS:

A total of 12 patients with the diagnosis of lateral epicondylitis were included in the study and 3 sessions of ESWT were applied (1 session per week). Maximum grip strength and pain scores were assessed before and at 1. month after the treatment. Spesific tests for lateral epicondylitis were utilized and Turkish version of the Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE-T) questionnaire was administered and data obtained were analyzed.

RESULTS:

Visual analog scale (VAS) scores were significantly lower (p<0.05) and grip strength significantly increased (p<0.05) one month after ESWT treatment. Overall PRTEE-T survey scores decreased significantly at first month (p<0.001) after treatment. Patient’s and physician’s global self-assessment scores were significantly lower after treatment (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION:

To conclude, ESWT utilization in conservative treatment of lateral epicondyilitis was found to be effective on reducing pain, and improving functional activities and quality of life.