Comparison of efficacy of corticosteroid injection versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy on inferior trigger points in the quadratus lumborum muscle: a randomized clinical trial

Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy on Pain and Function in Myofascial Pain Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to examine the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy in reducing pain, improving functionality, joint range of motion, quality of life, fatigue, and health status self-perception in people with myofascial pain syndrome.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and SPORTDiscus were systematically searched for only randomized clinical trials published up to June 2, 2022. The main outcome variables were pain, as reported on the visual analog scale and pressure pain threshold, and functionality. A quantitative analysis was conducted using the inverse variance method and the random effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were included ( N = 595 participants in the extracorporeal shockwave therapy group). The effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for relieving pain was superior for the extracorporeal shockwave therapy group compared with the control group on the visual analog scale (MD = -1.7 cm; 95% confidence interval = -2.2 to -1.1) and pressure pain threshold (mean difference = 1.1 kg/cm 2 ; 95% confidence interval = 0.4 to 1.7) and functionality (standardized mean difference = -0.8; 95% confidence interval = -1.6 to -0.04) with high heterogeneity. However, no differences were found between extracorporeal shockwave therapy and other interventions as dry needling, exercises, infiltrations, and lasers interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Extracorporeal shockwave therapy is effective in relieving pain and improving functionality in patients with myofascial pain syndrome compared with control and ultrasound therapy.

TO CLAIM CME CREDITS

Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME.

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) Determine the effectiveness of radial and focal extracorporeal shockwaves on pain perception, the pressure pain threshold, and functionality in people with myofascial pain syndrome; (2) Describe the intervention protocol of extracorporeal shockwave therapy to improve pain perception in people with myofascial pain syndrome; and (3) Describe the advantages and disadvantages of extracorporeal shockwave therapy versus other intervention such as dry needling.

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.

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.

Effectiveness of focused extracorporeal shock wave versus manual therapy in postpartum patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction: a prospective clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of focused extracorporeal shock wave therapy (FESWT) in treating postpartum sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction.

METHODS

A total of 90 patients with SIJ dysfunction were included and randomly assigned to FESWT, manual therapy (MT), or combination therapy (CT) groups. Pain intensity and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score were measured upon admission, after 1 and 2 weeks of treatments. The treatment efficacy and adverse events of each group were also assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences among three groups regarding clinical data, pain intensity, and ODI score on admission (all P > 0.05). After 1 week of treatment, FESWT exhibited similar pain intensity and lower ODI score (P < 0.001) compared to MT. After 2 weeks of treatment, the pain and ODI in FESWT were similar with MT. The pain in CT was lower than MT after 1 week, but lower than FESWT after 2 weeks. Furthermore, we identified interaction effects between treatment method and duration in relation to pain intensity (Fgroup*time = 5.352, P = 0.001) and ODI score (Fgroup*time = 5.902, P < 0.001). FESWT group exhibited the highest improvement rate of 66.7%, while CT group achieved the highest cure rate of 73.3%. No adverse events were observed in any of the patients during 2 months follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to MT, FESWT mainly reduced the ODI score rather than pain after 1 week of treatment. After 2 weeks, the effect of FESWT in relieving the pain was inferior to the MT.

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To provide high-quality evidence for extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) for low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

A computerized search screened trials of ESWT for LBP, and the time range was from the establishment of databases to August 2023, including CNKI, CBMdisc, Wanfang Data, VIP, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The outcomes were extracted, including patients' pain, physical and psychological conditions, and adverse reactions. Meta-analysis was completed using Revman 5.4 and Stata 15 software, and GRADEpro software quantitated rate the evidence and assigned a recommendation strength.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 1749 patients. After treatment, patients in the ESWT group had lower scores in the visual analog scale (VAS) (mean difference [MD] = -1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] (-1.47, -0.80), P < .00001), Oswestry disability index (ODI) [MD = -6.01, 95%CI (-7.97, -4.05), P < .00001], and Beck depression inventory [MD = -3.89, 95%CI (-6.59, -1.20), P = .005]; finger-floor distance [MD = -3.71, 95%CI (-5.26, -2.17), P < .00001] was shorter; Japanese orthopedic association scores [MD = 3.20, 95%CI (1.56, 4.85), P = .0001] were higher; at the 3-month follow-up, the VAS [MD = -1.29, 95%CI (-2.39, -0.19), P = .02] and ODI [MD = -5.95, 95%CI (-10.06, -1.84), P = .005] remained lower; adverse reactions [odds ratio = 0.19, 95%CI (0.07, 0.52), P = .001] were less, and the valid cases [odds ratio = 3.84, 95%CI (2.47, 5.96), P < .00001] were more. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were stable; Egger test found no publication bias in VAS (P = .270) and valid cases (P = .747); the trim and fill analysis tested the robustness of ODI scores due to the publication bias (P = .029), and the effect sizes before and after the trim and fill were consistent, which means the result was robust.

CONCLUSION

ESWT for LBP has efficacy and safety in improving pain, dysfunction, and psychological conditions compared to other therapies. ESWT has shown advantages in terms of long-term efficacy. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and more objective outcomes are required.

Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy in chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 632 patients

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been widely used for pain control in musculoskeletal disorders. Whether ESWT can relieve chronic low back pain (CLBP) and improve lumbar function is still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of relevant studies to comprehensively analyse and determine the efficacy and safety of ESWT for chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Four databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ESWT for CLBP. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to Cochrane systematic review criteria, relevant data were extracted, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcomes were pain intensity, disability status, and mental health. The data were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD) or weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. If I² ≥ 50%, a random effects model was applied; otherwise, a fixed effects model was used.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs involving 632 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The ESWT group reported significantly more pain relief than the control group at 4 weeks (WMD =  - 1.04; 95% CI =  - 1.44 to - 0.65; P < 0.001) and 12 weeks (WMD =  - 0.85; 95% CI =  - 1.30 to - 0.41; P < 0.001). Regarding the dysfunction index, ESWT led to significant improvement in lumbar dysfunction compared with the control group at 4 weeks (WMD =  - 4.22; 95% CI =  - 7.55 to - 0.89; P < 0.001) and 12 weeks (WMD =  - 4.51; 95% CI =  - 8.58 to - 0.44; P = 0.03). For mental health, there was no significant difference between the ESWT group and the control group after 4 weeks of intervention (SMD = 1.17; 95% CI =  - 0.10 to 2.45; P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ESWT provided better pain relief and improved lumbar dysfunction compared with the other interventions included, and no serious adverse effects were found. There was no significant effect of ESWT on the mental health of patients, but we hope to obtain more RCTs for further analysis in the future. Based on the pooled results, we suggest that ESWT is effective and safe for treating chronic low back pain.

Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave on low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is a relatively new type of treatment for many musculoskeletal disorders. However, ESWT for low back pain remains controversial as the pain relieve benefit is questionable. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effectiveness and safety of ESWT interventions on pain and disability in patients with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, we searched electronic databases in the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane's library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database to determine the equivalence of ESWT and placebo for the treatment of LBP up to April 4, 2022. A number of other outcomes were measured, including functional status, quality of life, and psychological outcomes measured by the Oswestry Disability Index. Weighted mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes, while risk ratios were calculated for binary outcomes. Stata 12.0 software was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials included for further analysis. Compared with control, the ESWT group showed lower pain intensity at month 1 (P < .05), as well as lower disability score at month 1 (P < .05) and at month 3 (P < .05). There was no statistically significant difference between ESWT and control groups in terms of the pain intensity at month 3 (P > .05). No serious adverse events related to treatment were reported. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the conclusions from this analysis were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

ESWT is effective in alleviating pain and improving the functional outcomes for patients with LBP. However, there remains a lack of high-level evidence to verify their effectiveness and safety and support their clinical application.

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy in Patients with Myofascial Pain or Fibromyalgia: A Scoping Review

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) and fibromyalgia (FM) are underestimated painful musculoskeletal conditions that could impact function and quality of life. A consensus about the most appropriate therapeutic approach is still not reached. Considering the long course of the diseases, prolonged assumption of drugs, such as NSAIDs and pain killers, could increase the risk of adverse events, often leading affected patients and physicians to prefer non-pharmacological approaches. Among these, radial and focused extracorporeal shock waves therapies (ESWT) are widely used in the management of painful musculoskeletal conditions, despite the fact that the mechanisms of action in the context of pain modulation should be further clarified. We performed a scoping review on PubMed using Mesh terms for analyzing the current evidence about the efficacy and effectiveness of ESWT for patients with MPS or FM. We included 19 clinical studies (randomized controlled trials and observational studies); 12 used radial ESWT, and 7 used focused ESWT for MPS. Qualitative analysis suggests a beneficial role of ESWT for improving clinical and functional outcomes in people with MPS, whereas no evidence was found for FM. Considering this research gap, we finally suggested a therapeutic protocol for this latter condition according to the most recent diagnostic criteria.

Efficacy and safety of treating chronic nonspecific low back pain with radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT), rESWT combined with celecoxib and eperisone (C + E) or C + E alone: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

To investigate whether respectively radial extracoporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT) or a combination of rESWT, celecoxib and eperisone (rESWT + C + E) are superior in reducing pain in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (cnsLBP) compared to C + E alone (a standard treatment of this condition in China).

METHODS

140 patients with cnsLBP were randomly allocated to rESWT (n = 47), rESWT + C + E (n = 45) or C + E alone (n = 48) for four weeks between November 2017 and March 2019. Outcome was evaluated using the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and Patient Health Questionnaire 9, collected at baseline as well as one week (W1), W2, W3, W4 and W12 after baseline.

RESULTS

All scores showed a statistically significant improvement over time. The PSEQ and NRS scores showed a significant Time × Treatment effect. Patients treated with rESWT had significantly lower mean NRS values than patients treated with rESWT + C + E at W1 and W3, as well as than patients treated with C + E alone at W3 and W4. No severe adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

rESWT may not be inferior to respectively rESWT + C + E or C + E alone in reducing pain in patients with cnsLBP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, prospective, randomized, active-controlled trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT03337607. Registered November 09, 2017, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03337607 .

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I; prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Treating Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement standard. We identified relevant studies by searching multiple electronic databases, trial registries, and websites up to April 30, 2021, and examining reference lists. We selected RCTs that compared ESWT, in unimodal or multimodal therapeutic approaches, with sham ESWT or other active therapies. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The main outcomes were pain intensity and disability status, examined as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed by using Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Group risk of bias tool and Jadad score, and GRADE was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. Heterogeneity was explored using sensitivity analysis and meta-regression.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs, including a total of 455 young to middle-aged individuals (29.2-55.8 years), were identified. Compared with control, the ESWT group showed lower pain intensity at month 1 (SMD = -0.81, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.42), as well as lower disability score at month 1 (SMD = -1.45, 95% CI -2.68 to -0.22) and at month 3 (SMD = -0.69, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.31). No serious shockwave-related adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

The use of ESWT in CLBP patients results in significant and quantifiable reductions in pain and disability in the short term. However, further well-conducted RCTs are necessary for building high-quality evidence and promoting the application of ESWT in clinical practice.