Comparing Ultrasound-Guided Needling Combined With a Subacromial Corticosteroid Injection Versus High-Energy Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Calcific Tendinitis of the Rotator Cuff: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes after treatment with standardized high-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and ultrasound-guided needling (UGN) in patients with symptomatic calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff who were nonresponsive to conservative treatment. METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial. The ESWT group received ESWT (2000 pulses, energy flux density 0.35 mJ/mm2) in 4 sessions with 1-week intervals. UGN was combined with a corticosteroid ultrasound-guided subacromial bursa injection. Shoulder function was assessed at standardized follow-up intervals (6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months) using the Constant Murley Score (CMS), the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, and visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction. The size, location, and morphology of the deposits were evaluated on radiographs. The a priori sample size calculation computed that 44 participants randomized in each treatment group was required to achieve a power of 80%. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were treated (56 female, 65%; mean age 52.1 ± 9 years) with a mean baseline CMS of 66.8 ± 12 and mean calcification size of 15.1 ± 4.7 mm. One patient was lost to follow-up. At 1-year follow-up, the UGN group showed similar results as the ESWT group with regard to the change from baseline CMS (20.9 vs 15.7; P = .23), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (-20.1 vs -20.7; P = .78), and visual analog scale for pain (-3.9 and -2.6; P = .12). The mean calcification size decreased by 13 ± 3.9 mm in the UGN group and 6.7 ± 8.2 mm in the ESWT group (

Effect of integrated care for sick listed patients with chronic low back pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness, cost utility, and cost-benefit of an integrated care programme compared with usual care for sick listed patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial with 12 months' follow-up. SETTING: Primary care (10 physiotherapy practices, one occupational health service, one occupational therapy practice) and secondary care (five hospitals) in the Netherlands, 2005-9. PARTICIPANTS: 134 adults aged 18-65 sick listed because of chronic low back pain: 66 were randomised to integrated care and 68 to usual care. INTERVENTIONS: Integrated care consisted of a workplace intervention based on participatory ergonomics, with involvement of a supervisor, and a graded activity programme based on cognitive behavioural principles. Usual care was provided by general practitioners and occupational physicians according to Dutch guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was duration until sustainable return to work. The secondary outcome was quality adjusted life years (QALYs), measured using EuroQol. RESULTS: Total costs in the integrated care group (£13 165, SD £13 600) were significantly lower than in the usual care group (£18 475, SD £13 616). Cost effectiveness planes and acceptability curves showed that integrated care was cost effective compared with usual care for return to work and QALYs gained. The cost-benefit analyses showed that every £1 invested in integrated care would return an estimated £26. The net societal benefit of integrated care compared with usual care was £5744. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an integrated care programme for patients sick listed with chronic low back pain has a large potential to significantly reduce societal costs, increase effectiveness of care, improve quality of life, and improve function on a broad scale. Integrated care therefore has large gains for patients and society as well as for employers.