Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for lateral epicondylitis--a double blind randomised controlled trial. Effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the treatment of previously untreated lateral epicondylitis: a randomized controlled trial. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis : a randomized multicenter trial. Repetitive low-energy shock wave treatment for chronic lateral epicondylitis in tennis players. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy without local anesthesia for chronic lateral epicondylitis. Extracorporeal shock-wave treatment for tennis elbow. A randomised double-blind study. Resistant tennis elbow: shock-wave therapy versus percutaneous tenotomy. A placebo controlled double blind trial to evaluate the effectiveness of pulsed short wave therapy for osteoarthritic hip and knee pain. The use of a mobile lithotripter in the treatment of tennis elbow and plantar fasciitis.
Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is an increasingly popular therapeutic approach to the treatment of a number of soft tissue complaints. Whilst benefit has been demonstrated in calcific tendinitis, evidence is lacking for benefit in the management of non-calcific rotator cuff disorders.
                To perform a double-blind placebo controlled trial of moderate dose ESWT in chronic lateral epicondylitis.
                Adults with lateral epicondylitis were randomised to receive either active treatment (1500 pulses ESWT at 0.12 mJ/ mm2) or sham therapy, monthly for three months. All were assessed before each treatment and one month after completion of therapy. Outcome measures consisted of visual analogue scores for pain in the day and at night.
                Seventy-five subjects participated and there were no significant differences between the two groups at baseline. The mean duration of symptoms was 15.9 and 12 months in the ESWT and sham groups, respectively. Both groups showed significant improvements from two months. No significant difference existed between the groups with respect to the degrees of change in pain scores over the study period. In the ESWT group the mean (SD, range) pain score was 73.4 (14.5, 38-99) at baseline and 47.9 (31.4, 3-100) at three months. In the sham group the mean (SD, range) pain score was 67.2 (21.7, 12-100) at baseline and 51.5 (32.5, 3-100) at three months. At three months, 50% improvement from baseline was noted in 35% of the ESWT group and 34% of the sham group with respect to pain.
                There appears to be a significant placebo effect of moderate dose ESWT in subjects with lateral epicondylitis but there is no evidence of added benefit of treatment when compared to sham therapy. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy is a relatively new therapy used in the treatment of chronic tendon-related pain. Few randomized controlled trials have been performed on it, and no studies have examined the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy as a frontline therapy for tendon-related pain.
                Subjects treated with active extracorporeal shock wave therapy will have higher rates of treatment success than subjects treated with sham extracorporeal shock wave therapy.
                Double-blind randomized controlled trial.
                Sixty subjects who had previously untreated lateral epicondylitis for less than 1 year and more than 3 weeks were included in this study. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive 1 session per week for 3 weeks of either sham or active extra-corporeal shock wave therapy. Subjects in the active therapy group received 2000 pulses (energy flux density, 0.03-0.17 mJ/mm(2)). All subjects were provided with a forearm-stretching program. After 8 weeks of therapy, subjects were classified as either treatment successes or treatment failures according to fulfillment of all 3 criteria: (1) at least a 50% reduction in the overall pain visual analog scale score, (2) a maximum allowable overall pain visual analog scale score of 4.0 cm, and (3) no use of pain medication for elbow pain for 2 weeks before the 8 week follow-up. Visual analog scale scores were also collected for pain at rest, during sleep, during activity, at its worst, and at its least, as well as for quality of life (using the EuroQoL questionnaire) and grip strength.
                Success rates in the sham and active therapy groups were 31% and 39%, respectively. No significant difference was detected between groups (chi(2)(1)= 0.3880, P = .533). Mean change in quality of life over 8 weeks was an increase of 1.3 and 3.3 for sham and active therapy groups, respectively, and mean change in grip strength over 8 weeks was an increase of 7.4 kg and 6.8 kg for sham and active therapy groups, respectively.
                Despite improvement in pain scores and pain-free maximum grip strength within groups, there does not appear to be a meaningful difference between treating lateral epicondylitis with extracorporeal shock wave therapy combined with forearm-stretching program and treating with forearm-stretching program alone, with respect to resolving pain within an 8-week period of commencing treatment. On the basis of observational trials, numerous investigators have recommended extracorporeal shock wave therapy as an alternative treatment for chronic lateral epicondylitis of the elbow. However, there has been no evidence of its efficacy from well-designed randomized clinical trials. The objective of this study was to find out whether extracorporeal shock wave therapy in combination with local anesthesia was superior to placebo therapy in combination with local anesthesia.
                A randomized multicenter trial with a parallel-group design was conducted. Following administration of local anesthesia, either extracorporeal shock wave therapy with three treatments of 2000 pulses each and a positive energy flux density (ED+) of 0.07 to 0.09 mJ/mm (2) or placebo therapy was applied on an outpatient basis. Treatment allocation was blinded for patients and for observers. The primary end point was based on the rate of success, as determined with the Roles and Maudsley score and whether additional treatment was required, twelve weeks after the intervention. Crossover was possible after assessment of the primary end point. Secondary end points were the Roles and Maudsley score, subjective pain rating, and grip strength after six and twelve weeks and after twelve months. The planned number of 272 patients was included in the study.
                The primary end point could be assessed for 90.8% of the patients. The success rate was 25.8% in the group treated with extracorporeal shock wave therapy and 25.4% in the placebo group, a difference of 0.4% with a 95% confidence interval of -10.5% to 11.3%. Similarly, there was no relevant difference between groups with regard to the secondary end points. Improvement was observed in two-thirds of the patients from both groups twelve months after the intervention. Few side effects were reported.
                Extracorporeal shock wave therapy as applied in the present study was ineffective in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. The previously reported success of this therapy appears to be attributable to inappropriate study designs. Different application protocols might improve clinical outcome. We recommend that extracorporeal shock wave therapy be applied only in high-quality clinical trials until it is proved to be effective. There is conflicting evidence regarding extracorporeal shock wave treatment for chronic tennis elbow.
                Treatment with repetitive low-energy extracorporeal shock wave treatment is superior to repetitive placebo extra-corporeal shock wave treatment.
                Seventy-eight patients enrolled in a placebo-controlled trial. All patients were tennis players with recalcitrant MRI-confirmed tennis elbow of at least 12 months' duration. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either active low-energy extracorporeal shock wave treatment given weekly for 3 weeks (treatment group 1) or an identical placebo extracorporeal shock wave treatment (sham group 2). Main outcome measure was pain during resisted wrist extension at 3 months; secondary measures were >50% reduction of pain and the Upper Extremity Function Scale.
                At 3 months, there was a significantly higher improvement in pain during resisted wrist extension in group 1 than in group 2 (mean [SD] improvement, 3.5 [2.0] and 2.0 [1.9]; P =.001 for between-group difference of improvement) and in the Upper Extremity Function Scale (mean [SD] improvement, 23.4 [14.8] and 10.9 [14.9]; P <.001 for between-group difference of improvement). In the treatment group, 65% of patients achieved at least a 50% reduction of pain, compared with 28% of patients in the sham group (P =.001 for between-group difference).
                Low-energy extracorporeal shock wave treatment as applied is superior to sham treatment for tennis elbow. The use of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis is controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of extracorporeal shock wave therapy without local anesthesia to treat chronic lateral epicondylitis.
                One hundred and fourteen patients with a minimum six-month history of lateral epicondylitis that was unresponsive to conventional therapy were randomized into double-blind active treatment and placebo groups. The protocol consisted of three weekly treatments of either low-dose shock wave therapy without anesthetic or a sham treatment. Patients had a physical examination, including provocation testing and dynamometry, at one, four, eight, and twelve weeks and at six and twelve months after treatment. Radiographs, laboratory studies, and electrocardiograms were also evaluated prior to participation and at twelve weeks. A visual analog scale was used to evaluate pain, and an upper extremity functional scale was used to assess function. Crossover to active treatment was initiated for nonresponsive patients who had received the placebo and met the inclusion criteria after twelve weeks.
                A total of 108 of the 114 randomized patients completed all treatments and the twelve weeks of follow-up required by the protocol. Sixty-one patients completed one year of follow-up, whereas thirty-four patients crossed over to receive active treatment. A significant difference (p = 0.001) in pain reduction was observed at twelve weeks in the intent-to-treat cohort, with an improvement in the pain score of at least 50% seen in 61% (thirty-four) of the fifty-six patients in the active treatment group who were treated according to protocol compared with 29% (seventeen) of the fifty-eight subjects in the placebo group. This improvement persisted in those followed to one year. Functional activity scores, activity-specific evaluation, and the overall impression of the disease state all showed significant improvement as well (p < 0.05). Crossover patients also showed significant improvement after twelve weeks of active treatment, with 56% (nineteen of thirty-four) achieving an improvement in the pain score of at least 50% (p < 0.0001).
                These results demonstrate that low-dose shock wave therapy without anesthetic is a safe and effective treatment for chronic lateral epicondylitis. The efficacy of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy for tennis elbow was investigated using a single fractionated dosage in a randomised, double-blind study. Outcomes were assessed using the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, measurements of grip strength, levels of pain, analgesic usage and the rate of progression to surgery. Informed consent was obtained before patients were randomised to either the treatment or placebo group. In the final assessment, 74 patients (31 men and 43 women) with a mean age of 43.4 years (35 to 71), were included. None of the outcome measures showed a statistically significant difference between the treatment and control groups (p > 0.05). All patients improved significantly over time, regardless of treatment. Our study showed no evidence that extracorporeal shock-wave therapy for tennis elbow is better than placebo. Fifty-six patients who suffered from chronic persistent tennis elbow of more than six months duration were randomly assigned to two active treatment groups. Group 1 (n = 29) received high-energy extracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESWT; 1,500 shocks) at 18 kV (0.22 mJ/mm(2)) without local anaesthesia; group 2 (n = 27) underwent percutaneous tenotomy of the common extensor origin. Both groups achieved improvement from the base line at three weeks, six weeks, 12 weeks and 12 months post-intervention. The success rate (Roles and Maudsley score: excellent and good) at three months in the ESWT group was 65.5% and in the tenotomy group was 74.1%. ESWT appeared to be a useful noninvasive treatment method that reduced the necessity for surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of pulsed short wave (PSW) in the relief of pain in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Ninety-two patients, mean age 63 years, (34 men and 58 women) were randomly allocated to one of three groups: (1) Active PSW, using the dosage found in a pilot study to be non-significantly most effective, (2) Placebo PSW, (3) No treatment control group. Nine sessions of treatment were provided over a 3-week period, each application lasting for 15 min. The machine was modified by the manufacturers so that the therapist was able to administer the treatment and carry out assessments without being aware of the treatment allocation. Outcome measures included sensory and affective pain diary reports averaged over days and weeks, self-reported benefit and the General Health Questionnaire. Analysis of variance with repeated measures over time was used to find out if the active treatment had a specific effect, incremental to the placebo effect. There were no significant differences between the active and placebo groups over time. According to the pain diary reports, both active and placebo groups tended to improve slightly during treatment, but worsened after its withdrawal. Patients who were given the placebo application tended to report more benefit than those who had the active treatment, although this did not quite reach statistical significance (P < 0.06). Patients who were not on a waiting list for surgery did significantly better over time than those who were (P < 0.03). There were no significant differences between the groups over time for the other outcome variables. Any treatment effect on this patient population appears to have been largely placebo-mediated. No evidence was found therefore for the specific effectiveness of PSW for treatment of osteoarthritic hip or knee pain. To evaluate the use of the mobile lithotripter in the treatment of tennis elbow and plantar fasciitis.
                A prospective single blind randomised trial was performed on 24 patients with tennis elbow and 23 patients with plantar fasciitis, with a mean duration of symptoms of 11 months. All patients had failed one or more method of treatment--conservative, topical non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), steroid injection and/or surgery. The patients were divided into treatment and placebo groups. The placebo group received treatment with a clasp on the elbow/heel to stop penetration of shock waves. A baseline pain score was obtained using the Million Visual Analogue scale (0-10). The affected area was infiltrated with 3-5mls of 1% lignocaine. The treatment consisted of 2000 shock waves at 2.5 bars of air pressure with a frequency of 8-10Hz. A total of three treatments were given at an interval of two weeks, each lasting for three to four minutes.
                In the treatment groups, a final pain score at six months post treatment showed significant improvement (three or more points) in 78% of patients with tennis elbow and 93% of patients with plantar fasciitis. In the placebo groups, significant improvement was seen in one patient (9%) with tennis elbow. The other patients in the placebo groups did not show significant improvement. This was statistically significant (chi square test) for both conditions.
                The mobile lithotripter is an effective way of treating tennis elbow and plantar fasciitis but warrants further larger studies.
Based upon systematic review of nine placebo-controlled trials involving 1006 participants, there is "Platinum" level evidence that shock wave therapy provides little or no benefit in terms of pain and function in lateral elbow pain. There is "Silver" level evidence based upon one trial involving 93 participants that steroid injection may be more effective than ESWT.