Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Versus Local Corticosteroid Injection for Chronic Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Orthopaedic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1111/os.14212
Lei Zhang, Xinyi Zhang, Long Pang, Zhuo Wang, Junliang Jiang
{"title":"Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Versus Local Corticosteroid Injection for Chronic Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Lei Zhang, Xinyi Zhang, Long Pang, Zhuo Wang, Junliang Jiang","doi":"10.1111/os.14212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Chronic lateral epicondylitis (LE), normally known as tennis elbow, is often managed by conservative treatments. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and local corticosteroid injection (LCI) are among the most commonly used conservative treatments. However, the comparison between these two interventions remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of ESWT and LCI for chronic LE. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies until April 20, 2024. Meta-analyses were conducted using Manager V.5.4.1. Pooled effect sizes were expressed as the weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Compared with LCI, ESWT had inferior change in visual analogue scale (Δ VAS) (WMD, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.48; I<sup>2</sup> = 20%; p < 0.001), Δ grip strength (WMD, -4.01; 95% CI, -5.57 to -2.44; I<sup>2</sup> = 36%; p < 0.001), change in patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (Δ PRTEE) score (WMD, 8.64; 95% CI, 4.70 to 12.58; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; p < 0.001) at 1-month follow-up, but superior Δ VAS (WMD, -1.15; 95% CI, -1.51 to -0.80; I<sup>2</sup> = 6%; p < 0.001), Δ grip strength (WMD, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.90 to 3.18; I<sup>2</sup> = 3%; p = 0.0005), Δ PRTEE score (WMD, -9.50; 95% CI, -14.05 to -4.95; I<sup>2</sup> = 58%; p < 0.001) at 3-month follow-up, and superior Δ VAS (WMD, -1.81; 95% CI, -2.52 to -1.10; I<sup>2</sup> = 33%; p < 0.001), Δ grip strength (WMD, 3.06; 95% CI, 0.90 to 5.21; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; p = 0.005) at 6-month follow-up. The two groups had a similarly low rate of adverse events (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.05 to 8.60; I<sup>2</sup> = 67%; p = 0.77), all of which were mild. Both ESWT and LCI are effective and safe in treating chronic LE. Compared with LCI, ESWT showed inferior short-term (1-month) but superior long-term (3-month and 6-month) outcomes regarding pain relief and function recovery, with a similar rate of mild adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":19566,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"2598-2607"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11541127/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/os.14212","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chronic lateral epicondylitis (LE), normally known as tennis elbow, is often managed by conservative treatments. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and local corticosteroid injection (LCI) are among the most commonly used conservative treatments. However, the comparison between these two interventions remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of ESWT and LCI for chronic LE. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies until April 20, 2024. Meta-analyses were conducted using Manager V.5.4.1. Pooled effect sizes were expressed as the weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Compared with LCI, ESWT had inferior change in visual analogue scale (Δ VAS) (WMD, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.48; I2 = 20%; p < 0.001), Δ grip strength (WMD, -4.01; 95% CI, -5.57 to -2.44; I2 = 36%; p < 0.001), change in patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (Δ PRTEE) score (WMD, 8.64; 95% CI, 4.70 to 12.58; I2 = 0%; p < 0.001) at 1-month follow-up, but superior Δ VAS (WMD, -1.15; 95% CI, -1.51 to -0.80; I2 = 6%; p < 0.001), Δ grip strength (WMD, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.90 to 3.18; I2 = 3%; p = 0.0005), Δ PRTEE score (WMD, -9.50; 95% CI, -14.05 to -4.95; I2 = 58%; p < 0.001) at 3-month follow-up, and superior Δ VAS (WMD, -1.81; 95% CI, -2.52 to -1.10; I2 = 33%; p < 0.001), Δ grip strength (WMD, 3.06; 95% CI, 0.90 to 5.21; I2 = 0%; p = 0.005) at 6-month follow-up. The two groups had a similarly low rate of adverse events (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.05 to 8.60; I2 = 67%; p = 0.77), all of which were mild. Both ESWT and LCI are effective and safe in treating chronic LE. Compared with LCI, ESWT showed inferior short-term (1-month) but superior long-term (3-month and 6-month) outcomes regarding pain relief and function recovery, with a similar rate of mild adverse events.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
体外冲击波疗法与局部皮质类固醇注射治疗慢性外上髁炎:随机对照试验的系统回顾与元分析》。
慢性外上髁炎(LE)通常被称为网球肘,通常采用保守疗法。体外冲击波疗法(ESWT)和局部皮质类固醇注射疗法(LCI)是最常用的保守疗法。然而,这两种治疗方法之间的比较仍存在争议。本研究旨在比较 ESWT 和 LCI 治疗慢性 LE 的有效性和安全性。研究按照系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行了系统综述和荟萃分析。在 2024 年 4 月 20 日之前,对 PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library 和 Web of Science 上符合条件的研究进行了检索。元分析使用 Manager V.5.4.1 进行。汇总效应大小表示为加权平均差(WMD)或几率比(OR),以及 95% 的置信区间(CI)。共纳入了六项随机对照试验(RCT)。与LCI相比,ESWT在视觉模拟量表(Δ VAS)(WMD,1.14;95% CI,0.80至1.48;I2 = 20%;P 2 = 36%;P 2 = 0%;P 2 = 6%;P 2 = 3%;P = 0.0005)、6 个月随访时的Δ PRTEE 评分(WMD,-9.50;95% CI,-14.05 至-4.95;I2 = 58%;P 2 = 33%;P 2 = 0%;P = 0.005)。两组的不良事件发生率同样较低(OR,0.69;95% CI,0.05 至 8.60;I2 = 67%;P = 0.77),均为轻微不良事件。ESWT和LCI治疗慢性LE均有效且安全。与LCI相比,ESWT在疼痛缓解和功能恢复方面的短期(1个月)疗效较差,但长期(3个月和6个月)疗效较好,轻度不良反应发生率相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Orthopaedic Surgery
Orthopaedic Surgery ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
374
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopaedic Surgery (OS) is the official journal of the Chinese Orthopaedic Association, focusing on all aspects of orthopaedic technique and surgery. The journal publishes peer-reviewed articles in the following categories: Original Articles, Clinical Articles, Review Articles, Guidelines, Editorials, Commentaries, Surgical Techniques, Case Reports and Meeting Reports.
期刊最新文献
Is Pedicle-Screw Internal Fixation With Two Small Incisions Superior to Traditional MI-TLIF With Four Incisions? Preliminary Follow-Up Results. Comparison of Mobility and Health-Related Quality of Life Between Hemiarthroplasty and Total Hip Arthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures in the Elderly: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Prospective Cohort Study. Mechanical Evaluation of Suture Docking Method Versus Novel Tensegrity Suture Screw in Treating Varus Posterolateral Surrogate and Cadaveric Elbow Instability. Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Arthroscopic-Assisted Uniportal Spinal Surgery Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study. Correction to "The Principle of Limb Reconstruction-"One Walking, Two Lines, and Three Balances": A Retrospective Analysis of Post-Traumatic Lower Limb Deformity Correction".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1