Effectiveness of Radial Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy in Patients with Acute Low Back Pain-Randomized Controlled Trial

Focused extracorporeal shockwave therapy for the treatment of low back pain: a systematic review

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition affecting up to 84% of people in their lifetime, with a prevalence of 11.9% and a high recurrence rate within the first year. Furthermore, chronic low back pain syndrome has been described in up to 7%, making it a significant health and socioeconomic problem. Among nonoperative treatment options, the recently used focused extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) devices generate waves that converge at a precise depth in the body, thereby revealing the potential to affect pathology remotely from the contact surface. The article aims to present a systematic literature review with a critical discussion on treating low back pain using this modality.

Methods

A search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) of focused ESWT for low back pain published before April 1, 2024, in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and trial registries (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicaTrials.gov) was performed.

Results

Only three studies against conservative treatment comprising 94 patients met the selection criteria and were further analyzed. Comparative clinical studies regarding the effectiveness of radial and focused ESWT for low back pain were missing. The results revealed that all treated patients had significantly reduced pain and improved functional impairment immediately after the procedures and 1 month later. At the third month time point, the pain levels remained better in the experimental than in the control group without achieving statistical significance. None of the studies had a long-term follow-up.

Conclusion

Focused ESWT is a modern physiotherapeutic method that can potentially treat a broad spectrum of conditions responsible for low back pain. Despite the small number of low-evidence studies, there is sufficient data on the effectiveness and safety of this therapeutic modality. With future well-designed trials, the bias risks would be diminished, the indications for its use would expand, and the treatment protocols would be clarified.

A neutral comparison of statistical methods for analyzing longitudinally measured ordinal outcomes in rare diseases

Ordinal data in a repeated measures design of a crossover study for rare diseases usually do not allow for the use of standard parametric methods, and hence, nonparametric methods should be considered instead. However, only limited simulation studies in settings with small sample sizes exist. Therefore, starting from an Epidermolysis Bullosa simplex trial with the above-mentioned design, a rank-based approach using the R package nparLD and different generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) methods were compared impartially in a simulation study. The results revealed that there was not one single best method for this particular design, because a trade-off exists between achieving high power, accounting for period effects, and for missing data. Specifically, nparLD as well as the unmatched GPC approaches do not address crossover aspects, and the univariate GPC variants partly ignore the longitudinal information. The matched GPC approaches, on the other hand, take the crossover effect into account in the sense of incorporating the within-subject association. Overall, the prioritized unmatched GPC method achieved the highest power in the simulation scenarios, although this may be due to the specified prioritization. The rank-based approach yielded good power even at a sample size ofN = 6 $N=6$ , whereas the matched GPC method could not control the type I error.

Comparison of pain relief and limb function improvement after extracorporeal shock wave therapy and thermomagnetic therapy in the treatment of low back pain

Objective

To compare the rehabilitation effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and thermomagnetic therapy (TMT) in patients with low back pain (LBP).

Methods

As a single-centre retrospective observational study, clinical data of patients with LBP who received rehabilitation treatment in our hospital from January 2020 to May 2021 were retrospectively collected. Based on the treatment mode, the patients were retrospectively divided into two groups: the control group (patients received core muscle training + TMT, n=51) and the observation group (patients received core muscle training + ESWT, n=56). The general data of the patients were collected and the groups were matched for age, gender and pain duration. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score of pain, improvement of limb function, β-endorphin (β-EP), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and nitric oxide (NO) were compared between the two groups before and after treatment.

Results

The VAS scores of the observation group were lower than those of the control group at one, two weeks and one month after the treatment (P<0.05). After the treatment, the proportion of mild limb dysfunction in the observation group was 57.14% (32/56), which was higher than 35.29% (1 /51) in the control group. The proportion of patients with severe and obvious disorders was 0 and 5.36% (3/56), respectively, which was lower than 11.76% (6/51) and 5.88% (3/51) in the control group (P<0.05). After the treatment, levels of NO and PGE2 in the observation group were lower, and the level of β-EP was significantly lower than in the control group (P<0.05).

Conclusions

A combination of core muscle training and ESWT can effectively improve the analgesic effect of the treatment and promote greater improvement of limb function in patients with LBP.

Common Bias and Challenges in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Research: How to Tackle Them

The importance of evidence-based medicine is crucial, especially in physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM), where there is a need to conduct rigorous experimental protocols, as in any medical field. Currently, in clinical practice, therapeutic approaches are often based on empirical data rather than evidence-based medicine. However, the field of PRM faces several challenges that may complicate scientific research. In addition, there is often a lack of appropriate research training in educational programs. In this context, we aim to review the methodological challenges in PRM and provide clear examples for each of them as well as potential solutions when possible. This article will cover the following themes: (1) Choosing the right study design and conducting randomized and benchmarking controlled trials; (2). Selecting the appropriate controlled, placebo or sham condition and the issue of blinding in non-pharmacological trials; (3) The impact of populations' heterogeneity and multi-comorbidities; (4). The challenge of recruitment and adherence; (5). The importance of homogeneity and proper quantification of rehabilitative strategies; and (6). Ethical issues. We are convinced that teaching the basics of scientific research in PRM could help physicians and therapists to choose a treatment based on (novel) scientific evidence. It may also promote scientific research in PRM to develop novel and personalized rehabilitation strategies using rigorous methodologies and randomized or benchmarking controlled trials in order to improve patients' management.

Observation of curative effect on meridian theory-based extracorporeal shock wave therapy for non-specific low back pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Non-specific low back pain (NLBP) is a major global socioeconomic burden, and the prevalence of NLBP is still on the rise. At present, there is no ideal drug to cure this disease. This may be the reason why patients often use complementary therapies. Among them, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has gradually received more attention and has become the main treatment method for NLBP. The purpose of this study is to provide scientific evidence for the effect and safety of meridian theory-based ESWT on NLBP.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the effect and safety of meridian theory-based ESWT on NLBP. This study will also provide more high-quality experimental evidence for the clinical application of meridian theory-based ESWT for the treatment of NLBP in future.

Methods

The study design is a single-blind, multi-center, randomized controlled trial. 66 patients with NLBP, aged 18 to 60 years, will be randomly divided into two groups: the experimental group (N = 33), which will receive meridian theory-based ESWT application, and the control group (N = 33) which will receive conventional ESWT treatment. These two applications will be carried out twice a week for two weeks. The primary outcome will be the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the secondary outcomes will be Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Surface Electromyography (sEMG), and Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15). All outcomes will be evaluated at baseline and after the intervention (7 days, 14 days).

Discussion

Results of this trial will contribute to providing rigorous clinical evidence for the efficacy and security of meridian theory-based ESWT for NLBP.

Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2100051049. Registered on 10 September 2021, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=46316.

Application of shock wave therapy in the treatment of calcific tendinopathies

Tendons are the soft tissue that connects muscles to bones. They are made of collagen and elastin, they are strong and solid, and have no possibility of contraction. Their strength helps us to move. Recovery of tendon injuries is long-lasting and can take more than six months. If a tendon is shed during a time injury, calcification occurs at the site of the injury and the disease is called calcifying tendinopathy. The very existence of calcifications is an indication for treatment with a mechanical shock wave (Shock wave). Mechanical shock waves can act in focus or radially. The difference between focused and radial waves is primarily in their physical basis. Focused shock waves differ from radial shock waves in terms of therapeutic depth of penetration into the tissue. The basic biological effect of a mechanical shock wave is stimulating. The energy of the mechanical shock wave acts at the cellular level by stimulating the reduction of inflammation and pain in the tissue. Using mechanical shock wave in the treatment of calcified tendinopathies, a safe method for breaking calcifications was obtained. Shock wave can be applied to using: different frequency, different number of strokes, as well as different strength of strokes in their studies. The choice of parameters for the application depends on whether it is calcified or non-calcified tendinopathy. Indications for the use are: painful shoulder, heel spur, plantar fasciitis, tennis elbow, Achilles tendon tendinopathy, jumping knee, patellar tendinitis, myalgia, myogelosis and muscular tendon overstrain syndrome. Contraindications for the use are: the existence of prostheses, knees and hips, as well as various orthopedic material, pacemaker, as well as the presence of chronic diseases such as multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or tumors. The application of a mechanical shock wave is new, non-invasive method, easy to apply, always reduces pain and practically without side effects. This method has a special role in the treatment of chronic inflammation of diseased tendons, with or without calcification. The only dilemma in the application of a mechanical shock wave can be in the number of applications as well as the time break between the applications of two consecutive mechanical shock waves therapy.