Ultrasound-guided percutaneous lavage for the treatment of rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08544-7
Cristiano Sconza, Valentina Palloni, Domenico Lorusso, Federico Guido, Giacomo Farì, Lucrezia Tognolo, Ezio Lanza, Fabrizio Brindisino
{"title":"Ultrasound-guided percutaneous lavage for the treatment of rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Cristiano Sconza, Valentina Palloni, Domenico Lorusso, Federico Guido, Giacomo Farì, Lucrezia Tognolo, Ezio Lanza, Fabrizio Brindisino","doi":"10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08544-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Ultrasound-guided lavage (UGL) is a minimally invasive percutaneous treatment for rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy (RCCT). It involves the use of a syringe containing saline and/or anesthetic solution injected directly into the calcification allowing aspiration of the fragmented calcific material. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate if UGL is effective in improving pain, function, quality of life, range of motion (ROM), and in promoting complete resorption of calcifications in patients with RCCT.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>Only randomized controlled trials considering people diagnosed with RCCT, at any stage and at any time of the onset of symptoms treated with UGL, were included. Embase, CENTRAL, CINHAL, PEDro and MEDLINE were explored up until May 2024. Two independent authors selected randomized controlled trials by title and abstract; afterwards, the full text was thoroughly evaluated. The risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 (ROB2) tool and the certainty of evidence was evaluated through the GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>Seven studies (709 subjects) were included. Overall, three studies were judged as low risk of bias. Pooled results showed non-significant differences between UGL and extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT) at 12 weeks (SMD=-0.52, 95% CI -1.57, 0.54, P=0.34, I<sup>2</sup>=93%) and at 26 weeks (MD=-1.20, 95% CI -2.66, 0.27, P=0.11, I<sup>2</sup>=82%), while a significant difference favoring UGL (SMD=-0.52, 95% CI -0.85, -0.19, P=0.002, I<sup>2</sup>=38%) resulted at 52 weeks. In regard to function, pooled results showed non-significant difference between UGL and ESWT at 6 weeks (MD=3.34, 95% CI -11.45, 18.12, P=0.66, I<sup>2</sup>=79%) and at 52 weeks (SMD=0.10, 95% CI -0.40, 0.60, P=0.69, I<sup>2</sup>=30%). Considering the rate of resorption of calcifications between UGL combined with subacromial corticosteroid injection (SCI) versus injection alone, pooled results showed significant difference favoring UGL at <52 weeks (RR=1.63 95% CI 1.34, 1.98, P<0.00001, I<sup>2</sup>=0%). Certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>UGL seems to be a reasonable and safe treatment for RCCT, however compared to other non/mini-invasive approaches, UGL showed doubtful results in controlling pain and increasing function and rate of calcifications resorption. These results should be interpreted with caution because certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08544-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Ultrasound-guided lavage (UGL) is a minimally invasive percutaneous treatment for rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy (RCCT). It involves the use of a syringe containing saline and/or anesthetic solution injected directly into the calcification allowing aspiration of the fragmented calcific material. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate if UGL is effective in improving pain, function, quality of life, range of motion (ROM), and in promoting complete resorption of calcifications in patients with RCCT.

Evidence acquisition: Only randomized controlled trials considering people diagnosed with RCCT, at any stage and at any time of the onset of symptoms treated with UGL, were included. Embase, CENTRAL, CINHAL, PEDro and MEDLINE were explored up until May 2024. Two independent authors selected randomized controlled trials by title and abstract; afterwards, the full text was thoroughly evaluated. The risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 (ROB2) tool and the certainty of evidence was evaluated through the GRADE approach.

Evidence synthesis: Seven studies (709 subjects) were included. Overall, three studies were judged as low risk of bias. Pooled results showed non-significant differences between UGL and extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT) at 12 weeks (SMD=-0.52, 95% CI -1.57, 0.54, P=0.34, I2=93%) and at 26 weeks (MD=-1.20, 95% CI -2.66, 0.27, P=0.11, I2=82%), while a significant difference favoring UGL (SMD=-0.52, 95% CI -0.85, -0.19, P=0.002, I2=38%) resulted at 52 weeks. In regard to function, pooled results showed non-significant difference between UGL and ESWT at 6 weeks (MD=3.34, 95% CI -11.45, 18.12, P=0.66, I2=79%) and at 52 weeks (SMD=0.10, 95% CI -0.40, 0.60, P=0.69, I2=30%). Considering the rate of resorption of calcifications between UGL combined with subacromial corticosteroid injection (SCI) versus injection alone, pooled results showed significant difference favoring UGL at <52 weeks (RR=1.63 95% CI 1.34, 1.98, P<0.00001, I2=0%). Certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.

Conclusions: UGL seems to be a reasonable and safe treatment for RCCT, however compared to other non/mini-invasive approaches, UGL showed doubtful results in controlling pain and increasing function and rate of calcifications resorption. These results should be interpreted with caution because certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.

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
超声引导下经皮灌洗治疗肩袖钙化性肌腱病:随机对照试验的系统回顾与荟萃分析。
简介:超声引导灌洗(UGL)是一种经皮微创治疗肩袖钙化性肌腱病(RCCT)的方法。它是使用注射器将生理盐水和/或麻醉溶液直接注入钙化处,从而吸出碎裂的钙化物质。本系统综述旨在研究 UGL 是否能有效改善 RCCT 患者的疼痛、功能、生活质量、活动范围 (ROM),并促进钙化完全吸收:仅纳入了考虑到任何阶段和任何时间发病的 RCCT 患者接受 UGL 治疗的随机对照试验。对Embase、CENTRAL、CINHAL、PEDro和MEDLINE进行了检索,直至2024年5月。两位独立作者根据标题和摘要选择了随机对照试验,随后对全文进行了全面评估。使用 Cochrane risk of bias 2 (ROB2) 工具评估了偏倚风险(ROB),并通过 GRADE 方法评估了证据的确定性:共纳入七项研究(709 名受试者)。总体而言,三项研究被判定为低偏倚风险。汇总结果显示,UGL 和体外冲击波疗法(ESWT)在 12 周(SMD=-0.52,95% CI -1.57, 0.54,P=0.34,I2=93%)和 26 周(MD=-1.20,95% CI -2.66,0.27,P=0.11,I2=82%),而在52周时,出现了有利于UGL的显著差异(SMD=-0.52,95% CI -0.85,-0.19,P=0.002,I2=38%)。在功能方面,汇总结果显示 UGL 和 ESWT 在 6 周(MD=3.34,95% CI -11.45,18.12,P=0.66,I2=79%)和 52 周(SMD=0.10,95% CI -0.40,0.60,P=0.69,I2=30%)时差异不显著。考虑到 UGL 联合髋臼下皮质类固醇注射(SCI)与单独注射之间的钙化吸收率,汇总结果显示 UGL 的差异显著(2=0%)。证据的确定性从低到极低不等:UGL似乎是一种合理、安全的RCCT治疗方法,但与其他非/微创方法相比,UGL在控制疼痛、增强功能和提高钙化吸收率方面的效果值得怀疑。由于证据的确定性从低到极低不等,因此应谨慎解释这些结果。
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
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
期刊最新文献
Hyperbaric oxygen treatment promotes tendon-bone interface healing in a rabbit model of rotator cuff tears. Oxygen-ozone therapy for myocardial ischemic stroke and cardiovascular disorders. Comparative study on the anti-inflammatory and protective effects of different oxygen therapy regimens on lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury in mice. Heme oxygenase/carbon monoxide system and development of the heart. Hyperbaric oxygen for moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury: outcomes 5-8 years after injury.
×
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:481959085
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