Radial shock wave treatment alone is less efficient than radial shock wave treatment combined with tissue-specific plantar fascia-stretching in patients with chronic plantar heel pain.

BACKGROUND: Whether shock wave therapy or shock wave therapy combined with plantar fascia-specific stretching is more efficient in treating chronic plantar heel pain remains unclear. The aim of the study was to test the null hypothesis of no difference of these two forms of management for patients who had unilateral plantar fasciopathy for a minimum duration of twelve months and which had failed at least three other forms of treatment. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-two patients with chronic plantar fasciopathy were assigned to receive repetitive low-energy radial shock-wave therapy without local anesthesia, administered weekly for three weeks (Group 1, n = 73) or to receive the identical shock wave treatment and to perform an eight-week plantar fascia-specific stretching program (Group 2, n = 79). All patients completed the nine-item pain subscale of the validated Foot Function Index and a subject-relevant outcome questionnaire. Patients were evaluated at baseline, and at two, four, and twenty-four months after baseline. The primary outcome measures were a mean change in the Foot Function Index sum score at two months after baseline, a mean change in item 2 (pain during the first steps of walking in the morning) on this Index, and satisfaction with treatment. RESULTS: No difference in mean age, sex, weight or duration of symptoms was found between the groups at baseline. At two months after baseline, the Foot Function Index sum score showed significantly greater changes for the patients managed with shock-wave therapy plus plantar fascia-specific stretching than those managed with shock-wave therapy alone (p < 0.001), as well as individually for item 2 (p < 0.001). Twenty-four patients in Group 1 (32%) versus forty-seven patients in Group 2 (59%) were satisfied with the treatment (p < 0.001). Significant differences persisted at four months, but not at twenty-four months. CONCLUSIONS: A program of manual stretching exercises specific to the plantar fascia in combination with repetitive low-energy radial shock-wave therapy is more efficient than repetitive low-energy radial shock-wave therapy alone for the treatment of chronic symptoms of proximal plantar fasciopathy.

A single application of low-energy radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy is effective for the management of chronic patellar tendinopathy.

PURPOSE: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (SWT) is effective for the management of chronic recalcitrant tendinopathy. The objective of the current study was to assess whether a standardized, single treatment SWT is effective for the management of chronic patellar tendinopathy METHODS: Thirty-three patients with chronic patellar tendinopathy received low-energy SWT. Thirty-three patients with chronic patellar tendinopathy received other forms of non-operative therapy (control group). Evaluation was by change in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Victoria Institute of Sport Assessment score for patellar tendinopathy (VISA-P) score and by Roles and Maudsley Score. RESULTS: Mean pre-treatment VAS scores for the control and SWT groups were 7.5 and 7.8, respectively. One month, 3 months, and 12 months after treatment, the mean VAS for the control and SWT groups were 6.7 and 4.3 (p < 0.001), 5.9 and 3.5 (p < 0.001), and 5.1 and 2.7 (p < 0.001), respectively. One month, 3 months, and 12 months after treatment, the mean VISA for the control and SWT groups were 50.7 and 65.5 (p < 0.001), 52.1 and 71 (p < 0.001), and 54.9 and 74.5 (p < 0.001), respectively. At final follow-up, the number of excellent, good, fair, and poor results for the SWT and control groups were 8 and 3 (p < 0.001), 17 and 10 (p < 0.001), 5 and 16 (p < 0.001), and 3 and 4 (p < 0.001), respectively. The percentage of patients with excellent ("1") or good ("2") Roles and Maudsley Scores (i.e. successful results) 12 months after treatment was statistically greater in the SWT group compared to the control group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A single application of radial SWT is an effective treatment for chronic patellar tendinopathy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Shockwave therapy for the treatment of chronic proximal hamstring tendinopathy in professional athletes.

BACKGROUND: Chronic proximal hamstring tendinopathy is an overuse syndrome that is usually managed by nonoperative methods. Shockwave therapy has proved to be effective in many tendinopathies. HYPOTHESIS: Shockwave therapy may be more effective than other nonoperative treatments for chronic proximal hamstring tendinopathy. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical study; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Forty professional athletes with chronic proximal hamstring tendinopathy were enrolled between February 1, 2004, and September 30, 2006. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either shockwave therapy, consisting of 2500 impulses per session at a 0.18 mJ/mm² energy flux density without anesthesia, for 4 weeks (SWT group, n = 20), or traditional conservative treatment consisting of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, physiotherapy, and an exercise program for hamstring muscles (TCT group, n = 20). Patients were evaluated before treatment, and 1 week and 3, 6, and 12 months after the end of treatment. The visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain and Nirschl phase rating scale (NPRS) were used as primary outcome measures. RESULTS: The patients were observed for a mean of 10.7 months (range, 1-12 months). Six patients were lost to follow-up because they underwent a surgical intervention: 3 (all in TCT group) were lost at 3 months; 2 (1 in each group), at 6 months; and 1 (in the TCT group), at 12 months. Primary follow-up was at 3 months after the beginning of treatment. The VAS scores in the SWT and TCT groups were 7 points before treatment (P = .84), and 2 points and 5 points, respectively, 3 months after treatment (P < .001). The NPRS scores in the SWT and TCT groups were 5 points in either group before treatment (P = .48), and 2 points and 6 points, respectively, 3 months after treatment (P < .001). At 3 months after treatment, 17 of the 20 patients (85%) in the SWT group and 2 of the 20 patients (10%) in the TCT group achieved a reduction of at least 50% in pain (P < .001). There were no serious complications in the SWT group. CONCLUSION: Shockwave therapy is a safe and effective treatment for patients with chronic proximal hamstring tendinopathy.

Plantar fascia-specific stretching versus radial shock-wave therapy as initial treatment of plantar fasciopathy.

BACKGROUND: Whether plantar fascia-specific stretching or shock-wave therapy is effective as an initial treatment for proximal plantar fasciopathy remains unclear. The aim of this study was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the effectiveness of these two forms of treatment for patients who had unilateral plantar fasciopathy for a maximum duration of six weeks and which had not been treated previously. METHODS: One hundred and two patients with acute plantar fasciopathy were randomly assigned to perform an eight-week plantar fascia-specific stretching program (Group I, n = 54) or to receive repetitive low-energy radial shock-wave therapy without local anesthesia, administered weekly for three weeks (Group II, n = 48). All patients completed the seven-item pain subscale of the validated Foot Function Index and a patient-relevant outcome questionnaire. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at two, four, and fifteen months after baseline. The primary outcome measures were a mean change in the Foot Function Index sum score at two months after baseline, a mean change in item 2 (pain during the first few steps of walking in the morning) on this index, and satisfaction with treatment. RESULTS: No difference in mean age, sex, weight, or duration of symptoms was found between the groups at baseline. At two months after baseline, the Foot Function Index sum score showed significantly greater changes for the patients managed with plantar fascia-specific stretching than for those managed with shock-wave therapy (p < 0.001), as well as individually for item 2 (p = 0.002). Thirty-five patients (65%) in Group I versus fourteen patients (29%) in Group II were satisfied with the treatment (p < 0.001). These findings persisted at four months. At fifteen months after baseline, no significant between-group difference was measured. CONCLUSIONS: A program of manual stretching exercises specific to the plantar fascia is superior to repetitive low-energy radial shock-wave therapy for the treatment of acute symptoms of proximal plantar fasciopathy.

Shock wave therapy as a treatment of nonunions, avascular necrosis, and delayed healing of stress fractures.

Shock wave therapy (SWT) stimulates angiogenesis and osteogenesis. SWT is commonly used to treat soft tissue musculoskeletal conditions such as fasciopathies and tendinopathies. Recent basic science and clinical data suggest that SWT can also be used to treat disorders of bone. Nonunions, avascular necrosis, and delayed healing of stress fractures have all been successfully treated with SWT. Success rates with SWT are equal to those with standard surgical treatment, but SWT has the advantage of decreased morbidity. The procedure is safe, well tolerated, yields few complications, and, typically, can be performed on an outpatient basis. SWT is a viable noninvasive alternative to stimulate healing of bone.

Low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy as a treatment for medial tibial stress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) is a pain syndrome along the tibial origin of the tibialis posterior or soleus muscle. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (SWT) is effective in numerous types of insertional pain syndromes. HYPOTHESIS: Shock wave therapy is an effective treatment for chronic MTSS. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Forty-seven consecutive subjects with chronic recalcitrant MTSS underwent a standardized home training program, and received repetitive low-energy radial SWT (2000 shocks; 2.5 bars of pressure, which is equal to 0.1 mJ/mm(2); total energy flux density, 200 mJ/mm(2); no local anesthesia) (treatment group). Forty-seven subjects with chronic recalcitrant MTSS were not treated with SWT, but underwent a standardized home training program only (control group). Evaluation was by change in numeric rating scale. Degree of recovery was measured on a 6-point Likert scale (subjects with a rating of completely recovered or much improved were rated as treatment success). RESULTS: One month, 4 months, and 15 months from baseline, success rates for the control and treatment groups according to the Likert scale were 13% and 30% (P < .001), 30% and 64% (P < .001), and 37% and 76% (P < .001), respectively. One month, 4 months, and 15 months from baseline, the mean numeric rating scale for the control and treatment groups were 7.3 and 5.8 (P < .001), 6.9 and 3.8 (P < .001), and 5.3 and 2.7 (P < .001), respectively. At 15 months from baseline, 40 of the 47 subjects in the treatment group had been able to return to their preferred sport at their preinjury level, as had 22 of the 47 control subjects. CONCLUSION: Radial SWT as applied was an effective treatment for MTSS.

Extracorporeal shock-wave therapy compared with surgery for hypertrophic long-bone nonunions.

BACKGROUND: The authors of several studies have recommended extracorporeal shock-wave therapy as an alternative to surgical treatment for long-bone nonunions. This study was performed to compare the results of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy produced by two different devices with those of surgical treatment in the management of long-bone nonunions. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six patients with a long-bone nonunion were randomly assigned to receive either extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (Groups 1 and 2) or surgical treatment (Group 3). The patients in the shock-wave groups received four treatments with 4000 impulses of shock waves with an energy flux density of 0.40 mJ/mm(2) (Group 1) or 0.70 mJ/mm(2) (Group 2). The patients in the three groups had similar demographic characteristics, durations of nonunion, and durations of follow-up. Radiographic results (the primary outcome) and clinical results (the secondary outcomes) were determined before and three, six, twelve, and twenty-four months after treatment. RESULTS: The radiographic findings did not differ among the three groups of patients. At six months, 70% of the nonunions in Group 1, 71% of the nonunions in Group 2, and 73% of the nonunions in Group 3 had healed. Three and six months after treatment, the clinical outcomes in the two shock-wave groups were significantly better than those in the surgical group (p < 0.001). However, at both twelve and twenty-four months after treatment, there were no differences among the three groups, with the exception of the DASH score, which differed significantly between Groups 1 and 3 (p = 0.038) and between Groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.021) at twelve months. CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal shock-wave therapy is as effective as surgery in stimulating union of long-bone hypertrophic nonunions and yields better short-term clinical outcomes.

Low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy as a treatment for greater trochanteric pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Greater trochanteric pain syndrome is often a manifestation of underlying gluteal tendinopathy. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy is effective in numerous types of tendinopathies. HYPOTHESIS: Shock wave therapy is an effective treatment for chronic greater trochanteric pain syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: Case control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with chronic greater trochanteric pain syndrome received low-energy shock wave therapy (2000 shocks; 4 bars of pressure, equal to 0.18 mJ/mm(2); total energy flux density, 360 mJ/mm(2)). Thirty-three patients with chronic greater trochanteric pain syndrome were not treated with shock wave therapy but received additional forms of nonoperative therapy (control). All shock wave therapy procedures were performed without anesthesia. Evaluation was by change in visual analog score, Harris hip score, and Roles and Maudsley score. RESULTS: Mean pretreatment visual analog scores for the control and shock wave therapy groups were 8.5 and 8.5, respectively. One, 3, and 12 months after treatment, the mean visual analog score for the control and shock wave therapy groups were 7.6 and 5.1 (P < .001), 7 and 3.7 (P < .001), and 6.3 and 2.7 (P < .001), respectively. One, 3, and 12 months after treatment, mean Harris hip scores for the control and shock wave therapy groups were 54.4 and 69.8 (P < .001), 56.9 and 74.8 (P < .001), and 57.6 and 79.9 (P < .001), respectively. At final follow-up, the number of excellent, good, fair, and poor results for the shock wave therapy and control groups were 10 and 0 (P < .001), 16 and 12 (P < .001), 4 and 13 (P < .001), and 3 and 8 (P < .001), respectively. Chi-square analysis showed the percentage of patients with excellent (1) or good (2) Roles and Maudsley scores (ie, successful results) 12 months after treatment was statistically greater in the shock wave therapy than in the control group (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Shock wave therapy is an effective treatment for greater trochanteric pain syndrome.

Home training, local corticosteroid injection, or radial shock wave therapy for greater trochanter pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: There are no controlled studies testing the efficacy of various nonoperative strategies for treatment of greater trochanter pain syndrome. Hypothesis The null hypothesis was that local corticosteroid injection, home training, and repetitive low-energy shock wave therapy produce equivalent outcomes 4 months from baseline. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-nine patients with refractory unilateral greater trochanter pain syndrome were assigned sequentially to a home training program, a single local corticosteroid injection (25 mg prednisolone), or a repetitive low-energy radial shock wave treatment. Subjects underwent outcome assessments at baseline and at 1, 4, and 15 months. Primary outcome measures were degree of recovery, measured on a 6-point Likert scale (subjects with rating completely recovered or much improved were rated as treatment success), and severity of pain over the past week (0-10 points) at 4-month follow-up. RESULTS: One month from baseline, results after corticosteroid injection (success rate, 75%; pain rating, 2.2 points) were significantly better than those after home training (7%; 5.9 points) or shock wave therapy (13%; 5.6 points). Regarding treatment success at 4 months, radial shock wave therapy led to significantly better results (68%; 3.1 points) than did home training (41%; 5.2 points) and corticosteroid injection (51%; 4.5 points). The null hypothesis was rejected. Fifteen months from baseline, radial shock wave therapy (74%; 2.4 points) and home training (80%; 2.7 points) were significantly more successful than was corticosteroid injection (48%; 5.3 points). CONCLUSION: The role of corticosteroid injection for greater trochanter pain syndrome needs to be reconsidered. Subjects should be properly informed about the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment options, including the economic burden. The significant short-term superiority of a single corticosteroid injection over home training and shock wave therapy declined after 1 month. Both corticosteroid injection and home training were significantly less successful than was shock wave therapy at 4-month follow-up. Corticosteroid injection was significantly less successful than was home training or shock wave therapy at 15-month follow-up.

Plantar fasciopathy.

Plantar fasciopathy is the most common cause of plantar heel pain. Featuring pain and tenderness on the medial plantar aspect of the calcaneus, clinical diagnosis seems straightforward. The role of various management strategies should be considered in the light of the selflimiting nature of plantar fasciopathy with more than 80% of patients experiencing resolution within 12 months, regardless of management. As there are no data from high-quality, randomized, controlled trials that support the efficacy of surgical management, the most prudent approach is to employ conservative modalities first. Recently, several randomized, controlled trials proved efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave treatment after the failure of more common conservative methods. Shockwave treatment helped to avoid surgery and its associated risks such as transient swelling of the heel pad, calcaneal fracture, injury of the posterior tibial nerve or its branches, and flattening of the longitudinal arch with resultant midtarsal pain. Surgical treatment is therefore considered in only a small subset of patients with persistent, severe symptoms refractory to nonsurgical intervention for at least 6 to 12 months.

Eccentric loading versus eccentric loading plus shock-wave treatment for midportion achilles tendinopathy: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Results of a previous randomized controlled trial have shown comparable effectiveness of a standardized eccentric loading training and of repetitive low-energy shock-wave treatment (SWT) in patients suffering from chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy. No randomized controlled trials have tested whether a combined approach might lead to even better results. PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of 2 management strategies--group 1: eccentric loading and group 2: eccentric loading plus repetitive low-energy shock-wave therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with a chronic recalcitrant (>6 months) noninsertional Achilles tendinopathy were enrolled in a randomized controlled study. All patients had received unsuccessful management for >3 months, including at least (1) peritendinous local injections, (2) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and (3) physiotherapy. A computerized random-number generator was used to draw up an allocation schedule. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: At 4 months from baseline, the VISA-A score increased in both groups, from 50 to 73 points in group 1 (eccentric loading) and from 51 to 87 points in group 2 (eccentric loading plus shock-wave treatment). Pain rating decreased in both groups, from 7 to 4 points in group 1 and from 7 to 2 points in group 2. Nineteen of 34 patients in group 1 (56%) and 28 of 34 patients in group 2 (82%) reported a Likert scale of 1 or 2 points ("completely recovered" or "much improved"). For all outcome measures, groups 1 and 2 differed significantly in favor of the combined approach at the 4-month follow-up. At 1 year from baseline, there was no difference any longer, with 15 failed patients of group 1 opting for having the combined therapy as cross-over and with 6 failed patients of group 2 having undergone surgery. CONCLUSION: At 4-month follow-up, eccentric loading alone was less effective when compared with a combination of eccentric loading and repetitive low-energy shock-wave treatment.

Mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy--current options for treatment.

PURPOSE: To report on the present option for management of tendinopathy of the main body of the Achilles tendon. BACKGROUND: Tendinopathy of the main body of tendo Achillis affects athletic and sedentary patients. Mechanical loading is thought to be a major causative factor. However, the exact mechanical loading conditions which cause tendinopathy are poorly defined. Repetitive mechanical loading induces a non-inflammatory pathology, and repetitive microtrauma ultimately exceeds the healing response. The management of Achilles tendinopathy is primarily conservative. Although many non-operative options are available, few have been tested under controlled conditions. This review article specifically focuses on eccentric training, and on shock wave therapy. Surgical intervention can be successful in refractory cases. However, surgery does not usually completely eliminate symptoms and complications are not rare. CONCLUSIONS: Further studies are needed to discern the optimal non-operative and surgical management of midsubstance Achilles tendinopathy.

Eccentric loading compared with shock wave treatment for chronic insertional achilles tendinopathy. A randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Nonoperative management of chronic tendinopathy of the Achilles tendon insertion has been poorly studied. With the recently demonstrated effectiveness of eccentric loading and of repetitive low-energy shock wave therapy in patients with midsubstance Achilles tendinopathy, the aim of the present randomized, controlled trial was to verify the effectiveness of both procedures exclusively in patients with insertional Achilles tendinopathy. METHODS: Fifty patients with chronic (six months or more) recalcitrant insertional Achilles tendinopathy were enrolled in a randomized, controlled study. All patients had received treatment, including local injections of an anesthetic and/or corticosteroids, a prescription of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and physiotherapy, without success for at least three months. A computerized random-number generator was used to draw up an allocation schedule. Twenty-five patients were allocated to receive eccentric loading (Group 1), and twenty-five patients were allocated to treatment with repetitive low-energy shock wave therapy (Group 2). Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Primary follow-up was at four months, and afterward patients were allowed to cross over. The last follow-up evaluation was at one year after completion of the initial treatment. The patients were assessed for pain, function, and activity with use of a validated questionnaire (the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles [VISA-A] questionnaire). RESULTS: At four months from baseline, the mean VISA-A score had increased in both groups, from 53 to 63 points in Group 1 and from 53 to 80 points in Group 2. The mean pain rating decreased from 7 to 5 points in Group 1 and from 7 to 3 points in Group 2. Seven patients (28%) in Group 1 and sixteen patients (64%) in Group 2 reported that they were completely recovered or much improved. For all outcome measures, the group that received shock wave therapy showed significantly more favorable results than the group treated with eccentric loading (p = 0.002 through p = 0.04). At four months, eighteen of the twenty-five patients from Group I had opted to cross over, as did eight of the twenty-five patients from Group 2. The favorable results after shock wave therapy at four months were stable at the one-year follow-up evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Eccentric loading as applied in the present study showed inferior results to low-energy shock wave therapy as applied in patients with chronic recalcitrant tendinopathy of the insertion of the Achilles tendon at four months of follow-up. Further research is warranted to better define the indications for this treatment modality.

Repetitive shock wave therapy for lateral elbow tendinopathy (tennis elbow): a systematic and qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Pooled meta-analyses of statistically and clinically heterogeneous data of randomised-controlled studies are difficult to interpret. Therefore, a qualitative study-by-study assessment was thought to be of greater relevance, to physicians confronted with a therapy-resistant tennis elbow patient, to determine the effectiveness of shock wave therapy (SWT) for lateral elbow tendinopathy. SETTING: Orthopaedic clinic. METHODS: Randomized trials were identified from a current search of The Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group specialized register of trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and reference lists of articles and dissertations. We included 10 trials that randomized 948 participants to SWT or placebo or treatment control. For each trial, two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality and extracted data. Methodological quality criteria included appropriate randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, number lost to follow-up and intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Conflicting results of the 10 studies were found. There was considerable heterogeneity in terms of methodological quality; treatment regimen; patient selection and follow-up period, precluding pooled analyses. Instead, individual trial results were described in the text. Only six trials had a high-quality methodology. Two independent high-quality randomized placebo-controlled trials (196 participants) reported significant success of SWT over placebo (65 versus 28%; 61 versus 29%). Design of both trials included enrolment of chronic recalcitrant patients only; 1500-2000 shocks of low-energy flux density (0.1 mJ/mm(2)) applied to the site of maximal discomfort (clinical focusing) in weekly intervals; no use of local anaesthesia and main follow-up at least 3 months after the last application. Three other independent high-quality trials (406 participants) did not find any benefit of SWT over placebo (32 versus 33%; 35 versus 34%; 39 versus 31%). In these three trials, study designs deviated from the design described earlier, enrolling acute patients or applying SWT under local anaesthesia or expanding the application intervals to 4 weeks, while reducing the main follow-up to 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: With current studies heterogeneous in terms of the duration of the disorder; type, frequency and total dose of SWT; period of time between SWT; type of management and control group; timing of follow-up and outcomes assessed, a pooled meta-analysis of SWT for lateral elbow tendinopathy was considered inappropriate. In a qualitative systematic per-study analysis identifying common and diverging details of 10 randomized-controlled trials, evidence was found for effectiveness of shock wave treatment for tennis elbow under well-defined, restrictive conditions only.

Shock wave therapy for chronic plantar fasciopathy.

INTRODUCTION: Relevant data of randomized-controlled studies on shock wave treatment for chronic plantar fasciopathy are statistically and clinically heterogeneous. METHODS: Randomized trials were identified form a current search of the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group specialized register of trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and reference lists of articles and dissertations. We identified and retrieved a total of 17 articles. Methodological quality criterial included appropriate randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, number lost of follow-up and intention to treat analysis. Significant heterogeneity between studies precluded pooled analyses. Instead, individual trial results were described in the text. RESULTS: We identified conflicting results in the 17 studies, involving more than 2100 participants. There was considerable heterogeneity in terms of methodological quality, treatment regimen, patient selection and follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: With current studies heterogenous in terms of the duration of the disorder; type, frequency and total dose of shock wave therapy (SWT); period of time between SWT; type of management and control group; timing of follow-up and outcomes assessed, a pooled meta-analysis of SWT for chronic plantar fasciopathy was considered inappropriate. Neverhteless, there was a preponderance of well-designed studies showing favourable results. It appears that one should only consider SWT for plantar fasciopathy after more common, accepted and proven non-invasive treatments have failed.

Validation of the Patient-rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation Questionnaire.

The aim of this study was to determine the reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the Patient-rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) Questionnaire in 78 tennis playing subjects who had chronic, unilateral, MRI-confirmed lateral elbow tendinopathy and who concomitantly participated in an outcome study. The PRTEE results were compared with results of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS); the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) Questionnaire; the Roles and Maudsley score; and the Upper Extremity Function Scale. Questionnaires were completed at baseline and 12 weeks. Reliability and internal consistency were excellent (PRTEE pain subscale, 0.94; PRTEE specific activities subscale, 0.93; PRTEE usual activities, 0.85). Correlations were good between the PRTEE subscales and total scale and the VAS and DASH. Standardized response means (SRM) were higher in the PRTEE (SRM=2.1) than in the other outcome measures (SRM, 1.5-1.7). The PRTEE was a reliable, reproducible, and sensitive instrument for assessment of chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy in a tennis playing cohort. It was at least as sensitive to change as the other outcome tools tested. The PRTEE may become the standard primary outcome measure in research of tennis elbow.

Eccentric loading, shock-wave treatment, or a wait-and-see policy for tendinopathy of the main body of tendo Achillis: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Few randomized controlled trials compare different methods of management in chronic tendinopathy of the main body of tendo Achillis. PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of 3 management strategies-group 1, eccentric loading; group 2, repetitive low-energy shock-wave therapy (SWT); and group 3, wait and see-in patients with chronic tendinopathy of the main body of tendo Achillis. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Seventy-five patients with a chronic recalcitrant (>6 months) noninsertional Achilles tendinopathy were enrolled in a randomized controlled study. All patients had received unsuccessful management for >3 months, including at least (1) peritendinous local injections, (2) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and (3) physiotherapy. A computerized random-number generator was used to draw up an allocation schedule. Analysis was on intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: At 4 months from baseline, the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA)-A score increased in all groups, from 51 to 76 points in group 1 (eccentric loading), from 50 to 70 points in group 2 (repetitive low-energy SWT), and from 48 to 55 points in group 3 (wait and see). Pain rating decreased in all groups, from 7 to 4 points in group 1, from 7 to 4 points in group 2, and from 8 to 6 points in group 3. Fifteen of 25 patients in group 1 (60%), 13 of 25 patients in group 2 (52%), and 6 of 25 patients in Group 3 (24%) reported a Likert scale of 1 or 2 points ("completely recovered" or "much improved"). For all outcome measures, groups 1 and 2 did not differ significantly. For all outcome measures, groups 1 and 2 showed significantly better results than group 3. CONCLUSION: At 4-month follow-up, eccentric loading and low-energy SWT showed comparable results. The wait-and-see strategy was ineffective for the management of chronic recalcitrant tendinopathy of the main body of the Achilles tendon.