Use of extracorporeal shockwave therapies for athletes and physically active individuals: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and investigate outcomes following the use of ESWT for athletes and physically active individuals. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and searched four databases: PubMed (NLM), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (EBSCO) and Web of Science (Clarivate). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Included studies were randomised controlled trials, cohort and case-control studies, cases series and reports that evaluated outcomes following ESWT for athletes, physically active individuals and occupational groups requiring regular physical activity such as military cadets. RESULTS: 56 studies with 1874 athletes or physically active individuals were included. Using the Oxford level of evidence rating, included studies were 18 level I (32.1%), 3 level II (5.4%), 10 level III (17.9%), 13 level IV (23.2%) and 12 level V (21.4%). Based on the level I studies, ESWT may be effective alone in plantar fasciitis, lateral epicondylitis and proximal hamstring tendinopathy and as an adjunct to exercise treatment in medial tibial stress syndrome and osteitis pubis in athletes or physically active individuals. In most studies, athletes were allowed to continue activities and training and tolerated ESWT with minimal side effects. CONCLUSION: ESWT may offer an efficacious treatment alone or as an adjunct to concurrent exercise therapy in selected sports-related injuries and without major adverse events. Further high-level research is needed to better define the role and clinical outcomes of ESWT.

Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Injections versus Steroid Injections in the Management of Upper and Lower Extremity Orthopedic Conditions: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although corticosteroid injections are an effective treatment for musculoskeletal pathologies, they may not be suitable for all patients. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes between patients who received NSAID and corticosteroid injections for various orthopedic conditions. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model for outcomes presented in three or more studies. Other studies were qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 28 articles with 2113 patients were included. A meta-analysis of five studies in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome demonstrated that there was no significant difference in the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) between subacromial NSAID injections and corticosteroid injections at 1 month [weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.244; 95% CI, -1.232 to 0.745; I2, 94.5%]. For patients with knee osteoarthritis, a meta-analysis of three studies demonstrated that there was no significant difference between intraarticular NSAID injections and corticosteroid injections in pain VAS at 1 month (WMD 0.754; 95% CI, -0.413 to 1.921; I2, 90.2%) and 3 months (WMD-0.089; 95% CI, -0.345 to 0.166; I2, 0%). A review of the studies assessing pain outcomes for hip osteoarthritis, adhesive capsulitis, and plantar fasciitis showed no significant differences between the NSAID and corticosteroid groups. CONCLUSION: NSAID injections may be safe and effective alternatives to steroid injections, especially in shoulder impingement syndrome and knee osteoarthritis.