The Musculoskeletal Applications of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Foot and Ankle Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy (ESWT) was first introduced into clinical practice in 1982 and has proved to be a beneficial adjuvant in the non-invasive treatment of numerous orthopaedic pathologies. However, clinical evidence reporting the use of ESWT in treating musculoskeletal disorders of the foot and ankle remain limited and a general consensus on its efficacy has not been achieved. Therefore, we reviewed the available literature and analysed any reported evidence in order to determine the benefits of ESWT in this cohort. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were systematically reviewed for any clinical studies that reported the treatment of foot and ankle disorders with ESWT. RESULTS: A total of 24 clinical studies, including 12 randomised control trials and 12 case series, were identified and included into this study. Analysis of the reported evidence indicate that ESWT can be beneficial in the symptomatic management of plantar fasciitis, calcaneal spur, Achilles tendinopathy and Morton's neuroma. However, differences in ESWT protocols used limit the generalizability of these findings and prevented an optimum treatment protocol from being determined. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the articles analysed in this review suggest a beneficial healing effect of ESWT in treating musculoskeletal disorders affecting the foot and ankle, with minimal side effects being reported. Thus, ESWT can be used safely in combination with other treatment modalities in order to achieve the best patient outcomes. Future studies should attempt to optimize the treatment protocols of ESWT to confirm these findings.

Comparison of the effectiveness of extensor muscle strengthening exercise by itself, exercise with polydeoxyribonucleotide injection, and exercise with extracorporeal shockwave therapy in lateral epicondylitis: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Extensor muscle strengthening exercises with counterforce bands (EX) is a conventional conservative treatment for lateral epicondylitis (LE) of the elbow. In addition, polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) or extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) has been recently used for tennis elbow.Methods: Sixty-three patients with chronic LE participated in this study and randomly allocated in three groups (G1: EX, G2: EX+PDRN injection, and G3: EX+ESWT). All of the three groups were taught to perform EX at the first out-patient department (OPD) visit. Group 2 was injected with 3 mL PDRN (5.625 mg/3 mL), while group 3 received ESWT at the first OPD visit. Visual analog scale pain score, Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS), and ultrasonographic examination were checked before, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after the treatments.Results: Overall functional scores and ultrasonographic findings in all three groups improved after treatment. The mean MEPS in group 2 improved more than groups 1 and 3 at 6 weeks (G1, 56.9>62.4; G2, 54.3>65.0; G3, 55.7>62.6), and more than group 1 at 12 weeks (G1, 56.9>67.9; G2, 54.3>73.6). The mean depth of the common extensor tendon depth (CETD) on ultrasonography in group 2 increased more than groups 1 and 3 at 6 and 12 weeks (6 weeks: G1, 0.385>0.386; G2, 0.332>0.392; G3, 0.334>0.357; 12 weeks: G1, 0.385>0.409; G2, 0.332>0.438; G3, 0.334>0.405 [cm]).Conclusions: PDRN injections combined with EX exhibited a greater improvement in mean MEPS and mean CETD compared to EX only or EX combined with ESWT for LE within the 12 weeks follow-up.

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

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy (rESWT) primarily on acute lumbar back pain (aLBP), and secondarily on physical function and quality of life. This randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blinded trial with 12-week follow-up (FU) randomized 63 patients with aLBP 1:1 into two groups receiving either rESWT (intervention) or sham rESWT (placebo) with a manipulated shockwave head not delivering any shockwaves. Both, rESWT and sham procedure were carried out eight times for four weeks. Both groups received additional analgesics and physiotherapy twice a week. Primary patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) was the visual analogue scale for aLBP (VAS-LBP). Secondary PROMs included the Oswestry disability index (ODI), Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), EuroQol EQ-5D-3L, and the Beck Depression Index (BDI-II). Primary endpoint was a between-arm comparison of mean changes in VAS-LBP from baseline to final FU. At randomization, there were no differences between the two groups in relation to age and PROMs. Both groups showed significant improvement in all PROMs at final FU. VAS-LBP declined by 60.7% (p < 0.001) in the intervention and by 86.4% (p < 0.001) in the sham group. The intervention group showed significantly less pain relief after 4 and 12 weeks. The EQ-5D submodality pain showed significantly inferior results for the intervention (1.5 (0.58)) compared to the sham group (1.1 (0.33)) (p < 0.014) after eight weeks. No significant intergroup differences were observed for RDQ, ODI or BDI-II. Additional rESWT alongside conventional guideline therapy in aLBP does not have any significant effects on pain intensity, physical function, or quality of life. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study with a high level of evidence reporting the efficacy of rESWT in aLBP treatment and will be a future basis for decision-making.

Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Treating Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective. To assess the effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement standard. We identified relevant studies by searching multiple electronic databases, trial registries, and websites up to April 30, 2021, and examining reference lists. We selected RCTs that compared ESWT, in unimodal or multimodal therapeutic approaches, with sham ESWT or other active therapies. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The main outcomes were pain intensity and disability status, examined as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed by using Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Group risk of bias tool and Jadad score, and GRADE was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. Heterogeneity was explored using sensitivity analysis and meta-regression. Results. Ten RCTs, including a total of 455 young to middle-aged individuals (29.2–55.8 years), were identified. Compared with control, the ESWT group showed lower pain intensity at month 1 ( SMD = − 0.81 , 95% CI −1.21 to −0.42), as well as lower disability score at month 1 ( SMD = − 1.45 , 95% CI −2.68 to −0.22) and at month 3 ( SMD = − 0.69 , 95% CI −1.08 to −0.31). No serious shockwave-related adverse events were reported. Conclusion. The use of ESWT in CLBP patients results in significant and quantifiable reductions in pain and disability in the short term. However, further well-conducted RCTs are necessary for building high-quality evidence and promoting the application of ESWT in clinical practice.