A comparison of two different treatments with navigated extracorporeal shock-wave therapy for calcifying tendinitis – a randomized controlled trial

Systematic literature review to inform the EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in crystal-induced arthropathies in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To summarise current data regarding the use of imaging in crystal-induced arthropathies (CiAs) informing a European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology task force.

METHODS

We performed four systematic searches in Embase, Medline and Central on imaging for diagnosis, monitoring, prediction of disease severity/treatment response, guiding procedures and patient education in gout, calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate deposition (CPPD) and basic calcium phosphate deposition (BCPD). Records were screened, manuscripts reviewed and data of the included studies extracted. The risk of bias was assessed by validated instruments.

RESULTS

For gout, 88 studies were included. Diagnostic studies reported good to excellent sensitivity and specificity of dual-energy CT (DECT) and ultrasound (US), high specificity and lower sensitivity for conventional radiographs (CR) and CT. Longitudinal studies demonstrated sensitivity to change with regard to crystal deposition by US and DECT and inflammation by US and structural progression by CR and CT. For CPPD, 50 studies were included. Diagnostic studies on CR and US showed high specificity and variable sensitivity. There was a single study on monitoring, while nine assessed the prediction in CPPD. For BCPD, 56 studies were included. There were two diagnostic studies, while monitoring by CR and US was assessed in 43 studies, showing a reduction in crystal deposition. A total of 12 studies with inconsistent results assessed the prediction of treatment response. The search on patient education retrieved two studies, suggesting a potential role of DECT.

CONCLUSION

This SLR confirmed a relevant and increasing role of imaging in the field of CiAs.

Shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease with or without calcification

BACKGROUND

Shock wave therapy has seen widespread use since the 1990s to treat various musculoskeletal disorders including rotator cuff disease, but evidence of its efficacy remains equivocal.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease, with or without calcification, and to establish its usefulness in the context of other available treatment options.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP up to November 2019, with no restrictions on language. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved trials to identify potentially relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that used quasi-randomised methods to allocate participants, investigating participants with rotator cuff disease with or without calcific deposits. We included trials of comparisons of extracorporeal or radial shock wave therapy versus any other intervention. Major outcomes were pain relief greater than 30%, mean pain score, function, patient-reported global assessment of treatment success, quality of life, number of participants experiencing adverse events and number of withdrawals due to adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was shock wave therapy compared to placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-two trials (2281 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Most trials (25) included participants with rotator cuff disease and calcific deposits, five trials included participants with rotator cuff disease and no calcific deposits, and two trials included a mixed population of participants with and without calcific deposits. Twelve trials compared shock wave therapy to placebo, 11 trials compared high-dose shock wave therapy (0.2 mJ/mm² to 0.4 mJ/mm² and above) to low-dose shock wave therapy. Single trials compared shock wave therapy to ultrasound-guided glucocorticoid needling, ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid injection, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS), no treatment or exercise; dual session shock wave therapy to single session therapy; and different delivery methods of shock wave therapy. Our main comparison was shock wave therapy versus placebo and results are reported for the 3 month follow up. All trials were susceptible to bias; including selection (74%), performance (62%), detection (62%), and selective reporting (45%) biases. No trial measured participant-reported pain relief of 30%. However, in one trial (74 participants), at 3 months follow up, 14/34 participants reported pain relief of 50% or greater with shock wave therapy compared with 15/40 with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.94); low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Mean pain (0 to 10 scale, higher scores indicate more pain) was 3.02 points in the placebo group and 0.78 points better (0.17 better to 1.4 better; clinically important change was 1.5 points) with shock wave therapy (9 trials, 608 participants), moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for bias). Mean function (scale 0 to 100, higher scores indicate better function) was 66 points with placebo and 7.9 points better (1.6 better to 14 better, clinically important difference 10 points) with shock wave therapy (9 trials, 612 participants), moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for bias). Participant-reported success was reported by 58/150 people in shock wave therapy group compared with 35/137 people in placebo group (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.91; 6 trials, 287 participants), low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). None of the trials measured quality of life. Withdrawal rate or adverse event rates may not differ between extracorporeal shock wave therapy and placebo, but we are uncertain due to the small number of events. There were 11/34 withdrawals in the extracorporeal shock wave therapy group compared with 13/40 withdrawals in the placebo group (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.31; 7 trials, 581 participants) low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision); and 41/156 adverse events with extracorporeal shock wave therapy compared with 10/139 adverse events in the placebo group (RR 3.61, 95% CI 2.00 to 6.52; 5 trials, 295 participants) low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Subgroup analyses indicated that there were no between-group differences in pain and function outcomes in participants who did or did not have calcific deposits in the rotator cuff.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the currently available low- to moderate-certainty evidence, there were very few clinically important benefits of shock wave therapy, and uncertainty regarding its safety. Wide clinical diversity and varying treatment protocols means that we do not know whether or not some trials tested subtherapeutic doses, possibly underestimating any potential benefits. Further trials of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease should be based upon a strong rationale and consideration of whether or not they would alter the conclusions of this review. A standard dose and treatment protocol should be decided upon before further research is conducted. Development of a core set of outcomes for trials of rotator cuff disease and other shoulder disorders would also facilitate our ability to synthesise the evidence.

Ultrasound Guidance Does Not Improve the Results of Shock Wave for Plantar Fasciitis or Calcific Achilles Tendinopathy: A Randomized Control Trial

OBJECTIVE

To establish whether the use of ultrasound to direct shock waves to the area of greater calcification in calcaneal enthesopathies was more effective than the common procedure of directing shock waves to the point where the patient has the most tenderness.

DESIGN

Two-armed nonblinded randomized control trial with allocation concealment.

SETTING

The Sports Clinic at Sydney University.

PATIENTS

Participants 18 years or older with symptomatic plantar fasciitis (PF) (with heel spur) or calcific Achilles tendinopathy (CAT). Seventy-four of 82 cases completed treatment protocol and 6-month follow-up.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive either ultrasound-guided (UG) or patient-guided (PG) shock wave at weekly intervals over 3 to 5 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Reduced pain on visual analog scale (VAS) and improved functional score on Maryland Foot Score (MFS) (for PF) or Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles (VISA-A) (for CAT). Follow-up was at 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

Comparative 6-month improvements in MFS for the 47 PF cases were PG +20/100 and UG +14/100 (P = 0.20). Comparative 6-month improvement in VISA-A score for the 27 CAT cases were PG +35/100 and UG +27/100 (P = 0.37). Comparative (combined PF and CAT) 6-month improvement in VAS pain scores for all 38 PG cases were +38/100 with +37/100 for all 36 UG shock wave cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both treatment groups had good clinical outcomes in this study, results for the 2 study groups were almost identical.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study shows that there is no major advantage in the addition of ultrasound for guiding shock waves when treating calcaneal enthesopathies (PF and CAT).

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.

Evidence for minimally invasive therapies in the management of chronic calcific tendinopathy of the rotator cuff: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis assessed the short-term to midterm effectiveness of minimally invasive treatments in the management of calcifying tendinopathy of the shoulder cuff, a common source of chronic shoulder pain that leads to pain, a decreased active range of motion, and loss of muscular strength. When conservative therapies fail, minimally invasive treatment options can be considered before resulting to surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to conduct this review. A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2013 to identify all studies that examined the short-term to midterm effectiveness of minimally invasive treatments for chronic calcifying tendinopathy. The primary end points were identified as function, pain, and total resorption rates. Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Included were 20 studies (1544 participants). Common methodological flaws were related to randomization. In general, there is moderate-quality GRADE evidence that high-energy extracorporeal shockwave therapy has a significant effect on pain relief and functional status compared with other interventions. There is variable-quality GRADE evidence on the efficiency of other interventions.

CONCLUSION

High-energy extracorporeal shockwave therapy is the most thoroughly investigated minimally invasive treatment option in the short-term to midterm and has proven to be a safe and effective treatment. Ultrasound-guided needling is safe but has not been proven to be more effective than an ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection in recent level I research, and further research will have to prove its effectiveness.

Focused extracorporeal shock wave therapy in calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: a meta-analysis

Background:

The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the management of calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder. Furthermore, a dose-response relationship was sought as a secondary confirmation of effectiveness.

Hypothesis:

Focused extracorporeal shock wave therapy has a high, dose-responsive effectiveness in the management of calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder.

Study Design:

Meta-analysis.

Methods:

Studies were identified from online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register), manual searches, and personal communication with experts in the field. After assessment of heterogeneity, a random effects model was generated. The primary end points were identified as pain and function by using the visual analog scale and the Constant-Murley Score, respectively. These end points were pooled and the weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated. Odds ratios of the secondary end point deposit resorption were pooled.

Results:

In 14 studies, shock wave therapy led to a significantly higher reduction of pain (weighted mean difference, −2.8 points; 95% confidence interval, −4.2 to −1.5 points) and improvement of function (weighted mean difference, 19.8 points; 95% confidence interval, 13.4-26.3 points), compared to other treatments and placebo. High-energy treatment produced significantly better results than low-energy treatment for pain reduction (weighted mean difference, 1.7 points; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-2.6 points) and improvement of function (weighted mean difference, 10.7 points; 95% confidence interval, 7.2-14.1 points). These results are consistent with a dose-response relationship supporting the effectiveness of shock wave therapy.

Conclusion:

Shock wave therapy for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder is effective in pain relief, function restoration, and deposit resorption; however, these conclusions are susceptible to bias arising from the limitations of the included studies.

Extracorporeal shockwave therapy in calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder

PURPOSE

Strategies for extracorporeal shockwave therapy in calcifying tendinitis of the rotator cuff vary concerning quantity of sessions and doses. The purpose of this prospective pilot study was to determine the difference between the outcome of a single high-dosage extracorporeal shockwave therapy and two sessions of low-dosage extracorporeal shockwave therapy.

METHODS

This study compared a single high-level middle-energetic extracorporeal shockwave therapy (0.3 mJ/mm(2)) with a low-level middle-energetic extracorporeal shockwave therapy applied twice in a weekly interval (0.2 mJ/mm(2)). Thirty patients that suffered from calcifying tendinitis for at least 6 months received navigated, fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave therapy. The gain of Constant Murley Score, Visual Analogue Scale during state of rest and weight-bearing situations ("stress") and radiographic progress was documented 6 and 12 weeks after therapy.

RESULTS

In both groups, a significant reduction in pain during stress and improvement of function was observed. In contrast, no significant reduction in pain during rest was observed. No significant difference between both groups concerning reduction in the calcific deposit after 6 weeks was detected. Group B showed minor advantages in radiographical improvement after 12 weeks. In 36% of the patients, the calcific deposit completely dissoluted after 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study indicates that a single high-level extracorporeal shockwave therapy may be as effective as two applications of a lower-dosed extracorporeal shockwave therapy for calcifying tendinitis. An effective single-session strategy could reduce treatment time, material costs and healthcare expenses and ionizing radiation in case of fluoroscopy guidance.

Arm position during extracorporeal shock wave therapy for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: a randomized study

Objective: To generate data on optimal shoulder position comparing two ultrasound-guided extracorporeal shock wave therapy techniques for the treatment of calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder.

Design: Random assignment to two groups of treatment with three months follow-up.

Setting: The data were collected in outpatients.

Subjects: Thirty-five subjects affected by calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder were examined.

Interventions: Each subject received three sessions of ultrasound-guided extracorporeal shock wave therapy (performed weekly). Neutral position technique was used in group A (n = 17, mean age 53 ± 9.2 years) and the hyperextended internal rotation technique was used in group B (n = 18, mean age 52.2 ± 10.8 years).

Main outcome measures: The Constant and Murley method and radiographs were used to evaluate each subject before the treatment and at three months follow-up.

Results: There were no significant differences between changes in Constant total score and pain, activity of daily living and range of motion subscales of the two groups. Only the pain subscale showed a significant difference in favour of group B. Significant differences in the radiographic outcome were observed between the two groups: the percentage of total or subtotal resorption of the calcified deposits was 35.3% in group A (neutral position technique) versus 66.6% in group B (hyperextended internal rotation technique). The resorption of the calcific deposit positively influenced the clinical outcome.

Conclusions: Positioning the shoulder in hyperextension and internal rotation during extracorporeal shock wave therapy seems to be a useful technique to achieve resorption of calcific deposits.