Comparison of Radial Pressure Waves and Focused Extracorporeal Shock Waves in Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee

Original Article | Vol 3 | Issue 2 |  July-December 2023 | page: 62-66 | Xichun Sun, Suoli Cheng, Xianghua Xiong, Zhengcheng Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/jrs.2023.v03.i02.109


Author: Xichun Sun [1], Suoli Cheng [1], Xianghua Xiong [2], Zhengcheng Wang [1]

[1] Department of Orthopedics, People’s Hospital of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China,
[2] Department of Orthopedics, People’s Hospital of Liangping District, Chongqing, China.

Address of Correspondence

Dr. Suoli Cheng,
Department of Orthopedics, People’s Hospital of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China.
E-mail: chengsuoli@126.com


Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate and compare the clinical efficacy of radial pressure waves and focused external shock wave therapy for knee osteoarthritis (KOA).
Materials and Methods: From October 2020, 90 patients aged 45–65 years old with Kellgren and Lawrence classification (K-L) stage I and II of KOA were selected in our hospital or randomly assigned to 3 groups with 30 cases in each group. One group was treated with antiinflamatory medication. The other two groups received one course of treatment (once a week, 4 times in total) performed by using radial focused shock
waves respectively, and follow-up was conducted by telephone and outpatient review 3, 6, and 9 months after the treatment. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) osteoarthritis score were used before and after treatment.
Results: (1) VAS, WOMAC, and evaluation indexes of both treated groups were better than those of the control group (oral drug group); (3) The score of the radial group was significantly different from that of the focused group (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: (1) Focused and radial pressure waves (RPW) have good clinical therapeutic effect on early KOA (2) Comparison of long-term effect: focused shock waves are more significant than radial (3) Radial pressure waves area good indication in relatively young patients, short course of disease (within 1 year), and K-L stage I an II. (4) In older patients, with more than a year of symptoms and K-L stages II and III, focal waves are more effective than radial waves. (5) Patients with acute onset and night pain or accompanied by obvious effusion can first take nonsteroidal
drugs orally continuously for a week, and the treatment effect is better. During treatment, the drugs can be continued or stopped according to the specific conditions. When synovial edema and effusion of the joint decreased, the conventional parameters were used for treatment.
Keywords: Knee osteoarthritis, Extracorporeal shock wave therapy, Radial Pressure Waves


References:

1. Sharma L. Osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 2021;384:51-9.
2. Peat G, McCarney R, Croft P. Knee pain and osteoarthritis in older adults: A review of community burden and current use of primary health care. Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60:91-7.
3. Liao D. Current status of epidemiologic investigation of osteoarthritis in China. Minim Invasive Med 2017;12:521-4.
4. Li Y, Li Z, Ren R, et al. Research progress in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee joint. Chin Contemp Med 2019;26:24-7.
5. Qiaoqiao M. Progress of clinical treatment of knee osteoarthritis. World Digest Latest Med Inf 2019;19:146-8.
6. Romeo P, Lavanga V, Pagani D, Sansone V. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy in musculoskeletal disorders: A review. Med Princ Pract 2014;23:7-13.
7. Wu YT, Yu HK, Chen LR, Chang CN, Chen YM, Hu GC. Extracorporeal shock waves versus botulinum toxin type a in the treatment of poststroke upper limb spasticity: A randomized noninferiority trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2018;99:2143-50.
8. Auersperg V, Trieb K. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy: An update. EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:584-92.
9. Guan A. Comparison of the Efficacy of the Same dose of Discrete and Focused Extracorporeal Shock Waves in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee. Taiwan: China Medical University; 2022.
10. Joint Surgery Group of the Chinese Orthopaedic Association. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoarthritis. Chin J Orthop 2018;38:705-15.
11. Zhang W, Moskowitz RW, Nuki G, Abramson S, Altman RD, Arden N, et al. OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, part I: critical appraisal of existing treatment guidelines and systematic review of current research evidence. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007;15:981-1000.
12. An S, Li J, Xie W, Yin N, Li Y, Hu Y. Extracorporeal shockwave treatment in knee osteoarthritis: Therapeutic effects and possible mechanism. Biosci Rep 2020;40:BSR20200926.
13. Zhao Z, Jing R, Shi Z, Zhao B, Ai Q, Xing G. Efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial. J Surg Res 2013;185:661-6.
14. Zhong Z, Liu B, Liu G, Chen J, Li Y, Chen J, et al. A randomized controlled trial on the effects of low-dose extracorporeal shockwave therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2019;100:1695-702.
15. Uysal A, Yildizgoren MT, Guler H, Turhanoglu AD. Effects of radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy on clinical variables and isokinetic performance in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A prospective, randomized, single-blind and controlled trial. Int Orthop 2020;44:1311-9.
16. Zhang YF, Liu Y, Chou SW, Weng H. Dose-related effects of radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy for knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med 2021;53:jrm00144.
17. Avendaño-Coy J, Comino-Suárez N, Grande-Muñoz J, Avendaño-López C, Gómez-Soriano J. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy improves pain and function in subjects with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Int J Surg 2020;82:64-75.
18. Wang CJ, Wang FS, Yang KD, Weng LH, Hsu CC, Huang CS, et al. Shock wave therapy induces neovascularization at the tendon-bone junction. A study in rabbits. J Orthop Res 2003;21:984-9.
19. Li JW, Zheng SJ, Zhang JC, Huang JJ, Liu XG. Effect of acupuncture plus different frequency shock-wave interventions on pain reactions and motor function in knee osteoarthritis patients. Zhen Ci Yan Jiu 2015;40:300-3.
20. Xu JK, Chen HJ, Li XD, Huang ZL, Xu H, Yang HL, et al. Optimal intensity shock wave promotes the adhesion and migration of rat osteoblasts via integrin β1-mediated expression of phosphorylated focal adhesion kinase. J Biol Chem 2012;287:26200-12.
21. Wang CJ, Hsu SL, Weng LH, Sun YC, Wang FS. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy shows a number of treatment related chondroprotective effect in osteoarthritis of the knee in rats. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013;14:44.
22. Chen PY, Cheng JH, Wu ZS, Chuang YC. New frontiers of extracorporeal shock wave medicine in urology from bench to clinical studies. Biomedicines 2022;10:675.
23. Fu M, Sun CK, Lin YC, Wang CJ, Wu CJ, Ko SF, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy reverses ischemia-related left ventricular dysfunction and remodeling: molecular-cellular and functional assessment. PLoS One 2011;6:e24342.
24. Dias dos Santos PR, De Medeiros VP, Freire Martins de Moura JP, da Silveira Franciozi CE, Nader HB, Faloppa F. Effects of shock wave therapy on glycosaminoglycan expression during bone healing. Int J Surg 2015;24:120-3.
25. Ko NY, Chang CN, Cheng CH, Yu HK, Hu GC. Comparative effectiveness of focused extracorporeal versus radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy for knee osteoarthritis-randomized controlled study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:9001.
26. Cleveland RO, Chitnis PV, McClure SR. Acoustic field of a ballistic shock wave therapy device. Ultrasound Med Biol 2007;33:1327-35.
27. Zhu Z, Zhu D, Jiang Y, Lin Y, Yang Y, Luan W. Cross-sectional study on the SF-36, the general self-efficacy, the social support, and the health promoting lifestyle of the young elderly in a community in Shanghai, China. Ann Palliat Med 2021;10:518-29.

 


How to Cite this article: Sun X, Cheng S, Xiong X, Wang Z | Comparison of Radial Pressure Waves and Focused Extracorporeal Shock Waves in Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee. | Journal of Regenerative Science | Jul-Dec 2023; 3(2): 62-66.

 

[Full Text HTML] [Full Text PDF] 


Clinical Study on the Treatment of Long Bone Fracture Non-union with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Combined with Platelet-rich Plasma

Original Article | Vol 3 | Issue 2 | July-December 2023 | page: 67-72 | RongDa Xu, JiaHui Li, ZhenCun Cai, Zhi Li, ZhiHao Liang, YuanLong Li, Lin Shen, HongLiang Tu, HongYu Zhou, Han Sun, Pei Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/jrs.2023.v03.i02.111


Author: RongDa Xu [1], JiaHui Li [1], ZhenCun Cai [1], Zhi Li [2], ZhiHao Liang [2], YuanLong Li [3], Lin Shen [4], HongLiang Tu [5], HongYu Zhou [6], Han Sun [7], Pei Li [1]

[1] Department of Orthopedics Surgery, Central Hospital Affiliated to Shenyang Medical College, Shenyang, China,
[2] Department of Orthopedics Surgery, Centro Hospitalar Conde de São Januário, Rua do Almirante Costa Cabral, Macau, China,
[3] Department of Orthopedics Surgery, Guangdong General Hospital, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, China,
[4] Department of Hand Surgery, Central Hospital Affiliated to Shenyang Medical College, Shenyang, China,
[5] Department of Orthopedics Surgery, 242 Hospital Affiliated to Shenyang Medical College, Huanggu District, China,
[6] Department of Orthopedics Surgery, Shenyang Orthopedic Hospital, Dadong District, Shenyang, China,
[7] Department of Orthopedics Surgery, Liaoyang County Central Hospital, Liaoyang, China.

Address of Correspondence

Dr. Pei Li,
Department of Orthopedics Surgery, Central Hospital Affiliated to Shenyang Medical College, Shenyang, China.
E-mail: peili4421@gmail.com


Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate of the therapeutic efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) combined with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection in patients with long bone fracture non-union.
Material and Methods: A total of 36 patients identified with long bone fracture non-union treated from September 2020 to September 2023 were enrolled into this study. Employing a random number table method, they were randomly divided into three groups, with 12 cases in each group. Based on the treatment modality, the groups were categorized as the ESWT group, PRP group, and combination ESWT + PRP group. Routine radiographs and musculoskeletal ultrasound were obtained before treatment and at 3-, 6-, and 9-month post-treatment intervals to observe for bone callus formation and assess fracture line imaging scores with the aim to evaluate the treatment efficacy of each group.
Results: With the extension of treatment time, the bone callus and fracture line imaging scores of the three groups gradually increased (P < 0.05). At 3-, 6-, and 9-month post-treatment, the scores of the ESWT combined with the PRP group were significantly better than those of the singular ESWT group and PRP group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: Therapy with singular ESWT, singular PRP, and combination ESWT + PRP has demonstrated effective improvement in fracture healing for patients with long bone fracture non-union. The synergistic effects of combination therapy were more significant, surpassing the efficacy of singular ESWT or PRP applications. The combined use of ESWT and PRP represents a safe and promising alternative treatment for long-bone fracture non-union, making it a compelling choice in the context of fracture healing.
Keywords: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy, Platelet-rich plasma, Non-union of fracture.


References:

1. Wu W, Tang P. The research progress on treatment methods for nonunion of bones. China Contin Med Educ 2017;9:126-9.
2. Panteli M, Vun JS, Pountos I, J Howard A, Jones E, Giannoudis PV. Biological and molecular profile of fracture non-union tissue: A systematic review and an update on current insights. J Cell Mol Med 2022;26:601-23.
3. Smolinska V, Csobonyeiova M, Zamborsky R, Danisovic L. Stem cells and their derivatives: An implication for the regeneration of nonunion fractures. Cell Transplant 2023;32:9636897231183530.
4. Wang X, Cui Y, Zhang L. Advances in treatment strategies and mechanisms for promoting fracture healing research. Chin Bull Life Sci 2021;33:121-30.
5. Schlickewei CW, Kleinertz H, Thiesen DM, Mader K, Priemel M, Frosch KH, et al. Current and future concepts for the treatment of impaired fracture healing. Int J Mol Sci 2019;20:5805.
6. Lai Y, Han J. The role and advances of extracellular vesicles in the mechanisms of bone nonunion treatment. Chin J Tissue Eng Res 2020;24:4349-55.
7. Zheng H, Zhang W, Wang Y, He B,Shen Y,Fan L. Femoral neck system combined with platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of femoral neck fracture. Chin J Tissue Eng Res 2023;27:1390-5.
8. Lv F, Li Z, Jing Y, Sun L, Li Z, Duan H. The effects and underlying mechanism of extracorporeal shockwave therapy on fracture healing. Front Endocrinol 2023;14:1188297.
9. Wang H, Shi Y. Extracorporeal shock wave treatment for post-surgical fracture nonunion: Insight into its mechanism, efficacy, safety and prognostic factors (Review). Exp Ther Med 2023;26:332.
10. Liang H, Jia H, Zhu J, Hu F, Li H, Xiao J, et al. Guidelines for extracorporeal shock wave therapy for musculoskeletal disorders in China (2023 Edition). Chin J Front Med Sci 2023;15:1-20.
11. Willems A, van der Jagt OP, Meuffels DE. Extracorporeal shock wave treatment for delayed union and nonunion fractures: A systematic review. J Orthop Trauma 2019;33:97-103.
12. Trinchese GF, Cipollaro L, Calabrese E, Maffulli N. Platelet-rich plasma, mesenchymal stem cell, and non-metallic suture-based fixation technique in a patellar fracture nonunion: A technical note and systematic review. Clin Orthop Surg 2021;13:344-51.
13. Fang J, Wang X, Jiang W, Zhu Y, Hu Y, Zhao Y, et al. Platelet-rich plasma therapy in the treatment of diseases associated with orthopedic injuries. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2020;26:571-85.
14. Yin N, Wang Y, Ding L, Yuan J, Du L, Zhu Z, et al. Platelet-rich plasma enhances the repair capacity of muscle-derived mesenchymal stem cells to large humeral bone defect in rabbits. Sci Rep 2020;10:6771.
15. Li S, Xing F, Luo R, Liu M. Clinical effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma for long-bone delayed union and nonunion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022;8:771252.
16. Seabaugh KA, Thoresen M, Giguère S. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy increases growth factor release from equine platelet-rich plasma in vitro. Front Vet Sci 2017;4:205.
17. Nicholson JA, Tsang ST, MacGillivray TJ, Perks F, Simpson AH. What is the role of ultrasound in fracture management?: Diagnosis and therapeutic potential for fractures, delayed unions, and fracture-related infection. Bone Joint Res 2019;8:304-12.
18. Sun L, Zhang N, Tu H, Li P. The application value of musculoskeletal ultrasound in long tubular bone fractures and nonunion shock wave therapy. Chin J Med Ultrasound 2019;16:827-31.

 


How to Cite this article: Xu R, Li J, Cai Z, Li Z, Liang Z, Li Y, Shen L, Tu H, Zhou H, Sun H, Li P | Clinical Study on the Treatment of Long Bone Fracture Non-union with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Combined with Platelet-rich Plasma. | Journal of Regenerative Science | Jul-Dec 2023; 3(2): 67-72.

 

[Full Text HTML] [Full Text PDF] 


Static Plantar Pressure Distribution and Position Correlations in Early and Mid-term Knee Osteoarthritis Patients

Original Article | Vol 3 | Issue 2 | July-December 2023 | page: 73-80 | Wan Yiqun, Gao Weiyu, Wang Lixin, Wang Ruiyue, Yang Zhikai, Wang Xin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/jrs.2023.v03.i02.113


Author: Wan Yiqun [1], Gao Weiyu [2], Wang Lixin [1], Wang Ruiyue [3], Yang Zhikai [4], Wang Xin [1]

[1] Department of Orthopaedic Medicine, Institute of Orthopedics, Fourth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China,
[2] Geriatrics Center, The People’s Hospital of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Hohhot, China,
[3] College of Nursing and Rehabilitation, North China University of Science and Technology, Qinhuangdao, China,
[4] Department of Rehabilitation, Capital Medical University Electric Teaching Hospital/State Gird Beijing Electric Power Hospital, Beijing, China.

Address of Correspondence

Dr. Wang Xin,
Department of Orthopaedic Medicine, Institute of Orthopedics, Fourth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
E-mail: wangx126@126.com


Abstract

Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is the most common degenerative joint disease, and patients will develop abnormalities in the movement model. Plantar pressure distribution and body postural characteristics may differ in patients with KOA compared to healthy adults and may affect physical function in these patients. At present, most related studies focus on patients with advanced KOA, and there are few studies on patients in early and middle stages. This study aims to apply the plantar pressure detection and human joint point identification technology to explore the characteristics of body posture and plantar pressure distribution in the early and middle-term KOA patients.
Materials and Methods: Data from 38 middle and early KOA patients (age =54.58 ± 7.32 years) and 28 healthy volunteers (age =54.93 ± 7.90 years including), lower limb weight bearing, peak foot pressure distribution, pressure center (center of pressure [CoP]) offset, offset area, Q angle, pelvic position, spine offset, and other data were compared by statistical analysis of independent sample t-test and Pearson’s Chi-square test.
Result: The results showed that the foot pressure in the early and mid-term KOA patients tended to be distributed in the medial heel, and the body CoP swing range was smaller than that in the control group (P < 0.05). In addition, patients in the KOA group had a larger left Q angle than the control group and had a smaller rate of right pelvis bias (P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in lower limb weight bearing and spinal posture between the two groups.
Conclusion: In standing conditions, patients in the KOA group have exhibited abnormal postural patterns and foot pressure distribution in the early and middle stages compared with healthy volunteers. Assessment of plantar pressure distribution, pelvic position, and positioning of lower limb joints may be important for evaluating patients with KOA.

Keywords: Knee osteoarthritis, Plantar pressure, Posture


References:

1. Cui A, Li H, Wang D, Zhong J, Chen Y, Lu H. Global, regional prevalence, incidence and risk factors of knee osteoarthritis in population-based studies. EClinicalMedicine 2020;29-30:100587.
2. Yanhong L, Xiaobing S. Status and progress of epidemiological studies on knee osteoarthritis at home and abroad. Chin J Orthop Tradit Chin Med 2012;20:81-4.
3. Liew JW, King LK, Mahmoudian A, Wang Q, Atkinson HF, Flynn DB, et al. A scoping review of how early-stage knee osteoarthritis has been defined. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2023;31:1234-41.
4. Mahmoudian A, Lohmander LS, Jafari H, Luyten FP. Towards classification criteria for early-stage knee osteoarthritis: A population-based study to enrich for progressors. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2021;51:285-91.
5. Van Rossom S, Wesseling M, Smith CR, Thelen DG, Vanwanseele B, Dieter VA, et al. The influence of knee joint geometry and alignment on the tibiofemoral load distribution: A computational study. Knee 2019;26:813-23.
6. Kang KT, Son J, Kwon SK, Kwon OR, Koh YG. Preservation of femoral and tibial coronal alignment to improve biomechanical effects of medial unicompartment knee arthroplasty: Computational study. Biomed Mater Eng 2018;29:651-64.
7. Mahmoudian A, Lohmander LS, Mobasheri A, Englund M, Luyten FP. Early-stage symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee – time for action. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2021;17:621-32.
8. Roos EM, Arden NK. Strategies for the prevention of knee osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2016;12:92-101.
9. Ghram A, Young JD, Soori R, Behm DG. Unilateral knee and ankle joint fatigue induce similar impairment to bipedal balance in judo athletes. J Hum Kinet 2019;66:7-18.
10. Lin Q, Zheng Y, Liao W, Luo Z, Li WY, Ou LN, et al. Analysis of plantar pressure in static balance in stroke patients. Rehabil Theor Pract China 2021;27:290-6.
11. Fischler MA, Bolles RC. Random sample consensus: A paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Commun ACM 1987;24:726-40.
12. Jiao C. Recognition of human body feature changes in sports health based on deep learning. Comput Math Methods Med 2022;2022:1736350.
13. Shah N, Costello K, Mehta A, Kumar D. Applications of digital health technologies in knee osteoarthritis: Narrative review. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2022;9:e33489.
14. Román-Belmonte JM, Corte-Rodríguez H, Rodríguez-Merchán EC. Artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal conditions. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed) 2021;26:1340-8.
15. Laur O, Wang B. Musculoskeletal trauma and artificial intelligence: Current trends and projections. Skeletal Radiol 2022;51:257-69.
16. Miura N, Nagai K, Tagomori K, Ikutomo H, Okamura K, Okuno T, et al. Plantar pressure distribution during standing in women with end-stage hip osteoarthritis. Gait Posture 2020;76:39-43.
17. Li K, Sun FL, Guo HB, Shi ZJ, Yao R, Zhang H. Comparison of the plantar pressure distribution and mechanical alignment in patients with varus knee osteoarthritis following high tibial osteotomy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2023;24:479.
18. Vasudevan D, Stotts AL, Mandayam S, Omegie LA. Comparison of BMI and anthropometric measures among South Asian Indians using standard and modified criteria. Public Health Nutr 2011;14:809-16.
19. Hu H, Wang J, Han X, Li Y, Wang F, Yuan J, et al. BMI, waist circumference and all-cause mortality in a middle-aged and elderly Chinese population. J Nutr Health Aging 2018;22:975-81.
20. Jang S, Lee K, Ju JH. Recent updates of diagnosis, pathophysiology, and treatment on osteoarthritis of the knee. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22:2619.
21. Unver B, Erdem EU, Akbas E. Effects of short-foot exercises on foot posture, pain, disability, and plantar pressure in pes planus. J Sport Rehabil 2019;29:436-40.
22. Hawrylak A, Brzeźna A, Chromik K. Distribution of plantar pressure in soccer players. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:4173.
23. He YJ, Zheng XL, Wang DF, Mu ZZ, Li GY, Fang ZZ, et al. Static and dynamic plantar pressure distribution in 94 patients with different stages of unilateral knee osteoarthritis using the footscan® platform system: An observational study. Med Sci Monit 2023;29:e938485.
24. Wang Y, Zhang K, Zeng J, Yan S. Coordination of lower limbs in patients with knee osteoarthritis during walking. Gait Posture 2021;83:160-6.
25. Suzuki Y, Ohkoshi Y, Kawakami K, Shimizu K, Chida S, Ukishiro K, et al. Assessing knee joint biomechanics and trunk posture according to medial osteoarthritis severity. Sci Rep 2023;13:19186.
26. Robadey J, Staudenmann D, Schween R, Gehring D, Gollhofer A, Taube W. Lower between-limb asymmetry during running on treadmill compared to overground in subjects with laterally pronounced knee osteoarthritis. PLoS One 2018;13:e0205191.
27. Lo GH, Merchant MG, Driban JB, Duryea J, Price LL, Eaton CB, et al. Knee alignment is quantitatively related to periarticular bone morphometry and density, especially in patients with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70:212-21.
28. Zhang C, Zhuang Z, Chen X, Li K, Lin T, Pang F, et al. Osteoporosis is associated with varus deformity in postmenopausal women with knee osteoarthritis: A cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021;22:694.
29. Wang WJ, Liu F, Zhu YW, Sun MH, Qiu Y, Weng WJ. Sagittal alignment of the spine-pelvis-lower extremity axis in patients with severe knee osteoarthritis: A radiographic study. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:198-205.
30. Shimizu M, Kobayashi T, Chiba H, Senoo I, Abe S, Matsukura K, et al. Examination of the changes in lower extremities related to progression of adult spinal deformity: A longitudinal study of over 22 years. Sci Rep 2020;10:11605.
31. Panyarachun P, Angthong C, Jindasakchai P, Rajbhandari P, Rungrattanawilai N. Abnormal foot pressure in older adults with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2022;26:6236-41.

 


How to Cite this article: Yiqun W, Weiyu G, Lixin W, Ruiyue W, Zhikai Y, Xin W | Static Plantar Pressure Distribution and Position Correlations in Early and Mid-term Osteoarthritis Patients | Journal of Regenerative Science | Jul-Dec 2023; 3(02): 73-80.

 

[Full Text HTML] [Full Text PDF] 


Cardiac Shock Wave Therapy in Cardiovascular Diseases

Review Article | Vol 3 | Issue 2 | July-December 2023 | page: 81-86 | Na Chen, Hanhua Ji

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/jrs.2023.v03.i02.115


Author: Na Chen [1], Hanhua Ji [2]

[1] Department of Internal Medicine, Peking University Hospital, Beijing 100871, China.
[2] Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Peking University Civil Aviation General Hospital, Beijing 100123, China.

Address of Correspondence

Dr. Na Chen,
Department of Internal Medicine, Peking University Hospital, Beijing 100871, China.
E-mail: 18901267905@163.com


Abstract

Cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, placing a huge burden on patients and healthcare systems. Cardiac shock wave (CSW) technology is a non-invasive treatment method. In recent years, some scholars have discovered that extracorporeal shock wave can improve cardiovascular ischemic lesions. This article reviews the latest progress in basic research and clinical application of cardiac shock wave technology in cardiovascular medicine and reviews its efficacy and potential mechanisms in different diseases. First, the principle of shock waves and their application potential in cardiovascular medicine are introduced. Then, from the aspects of basic research and clinical application, the mechanism and clinical efficacy of shock waves in cardiovascular diseases such as coronary heart disease, myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury, atrial fibrillation, atherosclerosis, and coronary artery calcification are discussed, as well as its advantages and limitations. Animal experiments and clinical studies have found that low-energy extracorporeal shock waves can upregulate the expression of vascular endothelial
growth factors, promote angiogenesis, promote nitric oxide production, increase local blood perfusion, significantly reduce angina symptoms, and improve left ventricular function and remodeling. Finally, the future development trend of shock wave technology is prospected. This review provides an introduction to the properties, biomechanical effects, treatment mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases, research status and development prospects of extracorporeal shock waves.
Keywords: Cardiac shock Wave Therapy, Cardiovascular diseases, ESWT


References:

1. Yeates K, Lohfeld L, Sleeth J, et al. A global perspective on cardiovascular disease in vulnerable populations. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 2015, 31(9): 1081-1093.
2. Burneikaitė G, Shkolnik E, Čelutkienė J, et al. Cardiac shock-wave therapy in the treatment of coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovascular ultrasound, 2017, 15: 1-13.
3. Wang Y, Guo T, Ma T, et al. A modified regimen of extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy for treatment of coronary artery disease. Cardiovascular Ultrasound, 2012, 10: 1-10.
4. Yang H T, Xie X, Hou X G, et al. Cardiac shock wave therapy for coronary heart disease: an updated meta-analysis. Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, 2020, 35: 741-756.
5. Jia N, Zhang R, Liu B, et al. Efficacy and safety of cardiac shock wave therapy for patients with severe coronary artery disease: a randomized, double-blind control study. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 2021: 1-16.
6. Di Meglio F, Nurzynska D, Castaldo C, et al. Cardiac shock wave therapy: assessment of safety and new insights into mechanisms of tissue regeneration. Journal of cellular and molecular medicine, 2012, 16(4): 936-942.
7. Wu X, Gu M, Ma Y, et al. Observation of the effectiveness of clinical indicators of cardiac shock wave therapy in patients with ischemic heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2023, 10: 1088811.
8. Shrivastava S K, Kailash. Shock wave treatment in medicine. Journal of biosciences, 2005, 30: 269-275.
9. Zhang Q, Liu L, Sun W, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy in osteonecrosis of femoral head: a systematic review of now available clinical evidences. Medicine, 2017, 96(4).
10. Karimi Galougahi K, Patel S, Shlofmitz R A, et al. Calcific plaque modification by acoustic shock waves: intravascular lithotripsy in coronary interventions. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2021, 14(1): e009354.
11. Wang M, Yang D, Hu Z, et al. Extracorporeal Cardiac Shock Waves Therapy Improves the Function of Endothelial Progenitor Cells After Hypoxia Injury via Activating PI3K/Akt/eNOS Signal Pathway. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2021, 8: 747497.
12. Shao P L, Chiu C C, Yuen C M, et al. Shock wave therapy effectively attenuates inflammation in rat carotid artery following endothelial denudation by balloon catheter. Cardiology, 2010, 115(2): 130-144.
13. Fukumoto Y, Ito A, Uwatoku T, et al. Extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy ameliorates myocardial ischemia in patients with severe coronary artery disease. Coronary artery disease, 2006, 17(1): 63-70.
14. Peng Y Z, Zheng K, Yang P, et al. Shock wave treatment enhances endothelial proliferation via autocrine vascular endothelial growth factor. Genet Mol Res, 2015, 14(4): 19203-19210.
15. Petrusca L, Croisille P, Augeul L, et al. Cardioprotective effects of shock wave therapy: A cardiac magnetic resonance imaging study on acute ischemia-reperfusion injury. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2023, 10: 1134389.
16. Qiu Q, Shen T, Yu X, et al. Cardiac shock wave therapy alleviates hypoxia/reoxygenation-induced myocardial necroptosis by modulating autophagy. BioMed Research International, 2021, 2021.
17. Ito K, Fukumoto Y, Shimokawa H. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for ischemic cardiovascular disorders. American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs, 2011, 11: 295-302.
18. Wong B, El-Jack S, Newcombe R, et al. Shockwave intravascular lithotripsy for calcified coronary lesions: first real-world experience. Heart, Lung and Circulation, 2019, 28: S7-S8.
19. Brinton T J, Ali Z A, Hill J M, et al. Feasibility of shockwave coronary intravascular lithotripsy for the treatment of calcified coronary stenoses: first description. Circulation, 2019, 139(6): 834-836.
20. Kassimis G, Didagelos M, De Maria G L, et al. Shockwave intravascular lithotripsy for the treatment of severe vascular calcification. Angiology, 2020, 71(8): 677-688.
21. Kassimis G, Ziakas A, Didagelos M, et al. Shockwave coronary intravascular lithotripsy system for heavily calcified de novo lesions and the need for a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, 2022, 37: 128-134.
22. Hill J M, Kereiakes D J, Shlofmitz R A, et al. Intravascular lithotripsy for treatment of severely calcified coronary artery disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2020, 76(22): 2635-2646.
23. Nishida T, Shimokawa H, Oi K, et al. Extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy markedly ameliorates ischemia-induced myocardial dysfunction in pigs in vivo. Circulation, 2004, 110(19): 3055-3061.
24. Yang P, Guo T, Wang W, et al. Randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial of extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy for coronary heart disease. Heart and vessels, 2013, 28: 284-291.
25. Wang W, Liu H, Song M, et al. Clinical effect of cardiac shock wave therapy on myocardial ischemia in patients with ischemic heart failure. Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology and therapeutics, 2016, 21(4): 381-387.
26. Zhang Y, Shen T, Liu B, et al. Cardiac shock wave therapy attenuates cardiomyocyte apoptosis after acute myocardial infarction in rats. Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry, 2018, 49(5): 1734-1746.
27. Wang Y, Guo T, Cai H Y, et al. Cardiac shock wave therapy reduces angina and improves myocardial function in patients with refractory coronary artery disease. Clinical cardiology, 2010, 33(11): 693-699.
28. Alunni G, Marra S, Meynet I, et al. The beneficial effect of extracorporeal shockwave myocardial revascularization in patients with refractory angina. Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, 2015, 16(1): 6-11.
29. Nudi F, Tomai F. Is Cardiac Shock Wave Therapy an Option for the Treatment of Myocardial Ischemia in Patients with Refractory Angina?. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 2022, 29(5): 2420-2422.
30. Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Delmas C, et al. Trends in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. European Journal of Heart Failure, 2020, 22(4): 664-672.
31. Li Y H, Hsu C Y, Liu C T, et al. Synchronized extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy may still affect the heart: a case report of perioperative ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Frontiers in Medicine, 2023, 10: 1147725.
32. Kereiakes D J, Virmani R, Hokama J Y, et al. Principles of intravascular lithotripsy for calcific plaque modification. Cardiovascular Interventions, 2021, 14(12): 1275-1292.
33. Abe Y, Ito K, Hao K, et al. Extracorporeal low-energy shock-wave therapy exerts anti-inflammatory effects in a rat model of acute myocardial infarction. Circulation Journal, 2014, 78(12): 2915-2925.
34. Kagaya Y, Ito K, Takahashi J, et al. Low-energy cardiac shockwave therapy to suppress left ventricular remodeling in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a first-in-human study. Coronary artery disease, 2018, 29(4): 294-300.
35. Peng Y Z, Guo T, Yang P, et al. Effects of extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy in patients with ischemic heart failure. Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi, 2012, 40(2): 141-146.
36. Pölzl L, Nägele F, Hirsch J, et al. Defining a therapeutic range for regeneration of ischemic myocardium via shock waves. Scientific Reports, 2021, 11(1): 409.
37. Myojo M, Ando J, Uehara M, et al. Feasibility of extracorporeal shock wave myocardial revascularization therapy for post-acute myocardial infarction patients and refractory angina pectoris patients. International heart journal, 2017, 58(2): 185-190.
38. Holfeld J, Zimpfer D, Albrecht‐Schgoer K, et al. Epicardial shock‐wave therapy improves ventricular function in a porcine model of ischaemic heart disease. Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, 2016, 10(12): 1057-1064.
39. Jargin S V. Shock wave therapy of ischemic heart disease in the light of general pathology. International journal of cardiology, 2010, 144(1): 116-117.
40. Raza A, Harwood A, Totty J, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy for peripheral arterial disease: a review of the potential mechanisms of action. Annals of vascular surgery, 2017, 45: 294-298.
41. Mariotto S, de Prati A C, Cavalieri E, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy in inflammatory diseases: molecular mechanism that triggers anti-inflammatory action. Current medicinal chemistry, 2009, 16(19): 2366-2372.
42. Leu S, Huang T H, Chen Y L, et al. Effect of extracorporeal shockwave on angiogenesis and anti-inflammation: Molecular-cellular signaling pathways[M]//Shockwave Medicine. Karger Publishers, 2018, 6: 109-116.

 


How to Cite this article: Chen N, Ji H Cardiac Shock Wave | Therapy in cardiovascular diseases | Journal of Regenerative Science | Jul-Dec 2023; 3(2): 81-86.

 

[Full Text HTML] [Full Text PDF] 


Scientific Evidence of Shock Waves in Orthopedics and Traumatology: It is Time to Set the Record Straight

Editorial | Vol 3 | Issue 1 |  Jan – June 2023 | page: 01-06 | Daniel Moya, Sun Wei, Claudio Simplicio, Leonardo Guiloff, Park Kwangsun, Alfonso Di Giorno, Osvaldo Valle, Josep Pous, Ram Chidambaram, Edson Serrano, Víctor Burgos Elía, Paul Terán, Laura Tutte, Fidel Gómez, Paul Patiño, Germán Solano, Jannety Berty Tejedas, Sergio Ajsiv, Graciela Moya

DOI: 10.13107/jrs.2023.v03.i01.67


Author: Daniel Moya [1], Sun Wei [2], Claudio Simplicio [3], Leonardo Guiloff [4], Park Kwangsun [5], Alfonso Di Giorno [6], Osvaldo Valle [7], Josep Pous [8], Ram Chidambaram [9], Edson Serrano [10], Víctor Burgos Elía [11], Paul Terán [12], Laura Tutte [13], Fidel Gómez [14], Paul Patiño [15], Germán Solano [16], Jannety Berty Tejedas [17], Sergio Ajsivinac [18], Graciela Moya [19]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina,
[2] Shockwave Center, Department of Orthopedics, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Chaoyang, Beijing, China,
[3] Clinica Ortofisio, Araruama, Río de Janeiro, Brazil,
[4] Department of Traumatology and Orthopedics, University of Chile, Founding Partner and Past President of ACHITOC and ONLAT, Chile,
[5] Seoul Sun Orthopedics Clinic and Vascular Pain Clinic, Seoul, Korea,
[6] Di Giorno Rehabilitation Medical Centers, Focused Shockwave Specialist, Bologna, Italy,
[7] Department of Orthopedic Surgeon, Ankle and Foot Team, MEDS Clinic, Santiago de Chile,
[8] CEMATEC (Centros de Medicina Avanzada y Tecnológica), Barcelona, Spain,
[9] MS Ortho, DNB Ortho, FRCS Surgery (Glasgow), FRCS Tr & Orth (UK). Director, Shoulder, Elbow & Hand Unit MGM Healthcare, Chennai, India.,
[10] Orthopaedic Surgeon. Centro Médico Especializado Neomedica, Lima, Perú,
[11] Coordinator Rehabilitation Service, Corporativo Hospital Satélite, Estado de México, México,
[12] Department of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Orthopedic Specialties Center, Quito, Ecuador,
[13] Department of Rehabilitation, Seguro Americano-Medicina Privada, Montevideo, Uruguay,
[14] Unidad de Medicina Regenerativa, Clinica Ortopédica Traumatocenter, Luque, Paraguay,
[15] Artrocentro, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia,
[16] Orthopaedic Surgeon, Clínica Bíblica, Santa Ana, San José, Costa Rica,
[17] Specialist in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chair Clínica Central Cira García, La Habana, Cuba,
[18] Head of Department of Physiatry, Hospital Nacional de Ortopedia y Rehabilitación Dr. Jorge Von Ahn, Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala.
[19] Department of Bioethics Institute, Medical Science School, Buenos Aires Pontifical Catholic University, Argentina.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Daniel Moya,
Department of Orthopaedics, Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
E-mail: drdanielmoya@yahoo.com.ar


Editorial:

“Stephen Burkhart, a pioneer in arthroscopic shoulder surgery, in his keynote address at the World Congress of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery held in Buenos Aires in 2019, asked himself whether this surgical technique could have been developed during the 21st century, the age of evidence-based medicine, and FDA restriction policies [1]. Shoulder arthroscopy is today an accepted and recognized practice by all health insurance companies in the world. However, it must be recognized that its development in shoulder pathology began in the mid-1980s, when the pressure of evidence was much less pronounced. This allowed faster development and massive recognition from insurers. The advent of shock waves in musculoskeletal pathology started in the late 90’s. The publication of a special volume on this subject in 2001 in Clinical Orthopedics, under the coordination of Ogden [2], could be considered a milestone. From that moment, the technique was widely disseminated, but unlike arthroscopy, it has not achieved mass acceptance in the medical field or recognition by most health agencies and insurance companies [3-12]. A few months ago, the National Evidence-based Health-care Collaborating Agency of Korea issued an extremely critical report about the scientific evidence that supports the indications for shock waves [12]. This is not an isolated case; there are numerous examples of health technology assessment agencies and health insurance companies that question the scientific evidence behind shock waves. This determines that reimbursements are not made to patients, but above all it questions not only the effectiveness of the method but also the suitability of the professional who recommends it. Clinical experts experience in many patients shows that shock waves can produce results that would not be possible to achieve with other non-invasive methods. Clinical data comparing previous and post-treatment studies shows an objective positive response that cannot be attributed to a placebo effect (Fig. 1). So, why are there such conflicting criteria between practice, published evidence, and health agencies? Undoubtedly, the current situation is the consequence of the actions of many parties involved; including researchers, industry, state agencies, insurance companies, health professionals, and epidemiologists. It seems that each one approaches the subject from a biased position with a marked preconception about the effectiveness or
uselessness of shock waves.

Are the Current Evidence-based Medicine Reports a Guarantee of Efficacy to Analyze the Indications of Shock Waves?
In 1991, Guyatt introduced the concept of “evidence-based medicine” [13]. It is defined as the use of the scientific method to organize and apply current data to improve health-care decisions [14]. This approach gained great popularity. Health Technology Assessment agencies provide information about medical, economic, social, and ethical issues related to the use of a health technology based on levels of evidence. Reports about evidence from institutions such as the Cochrane Collaboration are highly valued. However, with regard to shock waves, the quality of the reports is in many cases highly debatable. Frequently, emphasis is placed on methodological and statistical factors, which of course is good, but not on the technical aspects of the method. An example is the study of Buchbinder et al. on the use of shock waves in chronic epicondylopathy [15]. The authors concluded that there was “Platinum” level evidence that shock wave therapy provides little or no benefit in terms of pain and function in lateral elbow pain. However, Rompe and Maffulli [16] revealed serious errors in this systematic review based on the inclusion of heterogeneous studies and errors in the shock wave application technique in several cases. Surace et al. [17] discussed the results of “shock wave therapy” in “rotator cuff disease with or without calcification,” with a similar misleading approach. First, they include two differentiate clinical conditions, calcified and non-calcified tendinopathies of the rotator cuff, which have in common their anatomical location only. While a calcification settles by definition in a rotator cuff with regenerative capacities, non-calcified tendinopathy is a degenerative and progressive condition. This is like trying to compare the outcomes of treatments for pneumonia with lung cancer simply because both diseases are located in the lungs. Second, the authors considered focused shock waves and radial pressure waves as the same treatment, when the physical parameters of these mechanical waves are absolutely different [18]. The modes of action and the effects of radial pressure waves on living tissue are different from those of focused shockwaves because bioeffects are related to the pressure waveform [19]. Hence, it is not a proper scientifical approach to consider both of them as the same treatment just because the market named both methods similarly. Nowadays, numerous studies have shown that the best results in the treatment of rotator cuff calcifications are generated from the application of high energy [20-22]; however, the systematic review, we discuss, also includes studies with radial pressure waves that do not reach those energy levels. Although the values of evidence-based medicine are useful, its mode of implementation has been discussed in recent times [23-27]. Decreeing that a method is effective or not based on studies of poor clinical quality, beyond the fact that they may be correct from the statistical point of view, is like trying to end cannibalism by eating the last cannibal. These errors could be avoided by incorporating experts in shock waves and orthopedic pathology into the studies, working jointly with epidemiologists.

What About the Quality of Scientific Literature?
Surgical techniques already installed in our daily practice are usually approved by insurance companies and health technology assessment agencies despite having debatable scientific evidence to support their use. Blom et al. [28] demonstrated that many of the 10 most indicated surgical procedures in orthopedics and traumatology are not supported by studies with a high level of evidence. This is not surprising, as it has been reported poor quality research methodology in the orthopedic literature [29]. Poolman et al. suggested that readers should not assume that studies labeled as “Level I” necessarily have high reporting quality [30]. Ionnanidis stated that for many scientific fields, “claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias [31].” Jager and Leek estimated that the proportion of false positive findings was between 14% and 29% in 100 published clinical studies that they attempted to replicate [32]. We have also witnessed a large number of surgical procedures that had an exponential growth after being approved by health systems, ended up falling into disuse after a few years because same outcomes with conservative treatment were demonstrated. Good examples of this are acromioplasty [33, 34] and the repair of injuries in the superior labrum of the shoulder [35, 36]. It is impossible to draw an accurate conclusion based on inadequate studies. Shock wave studies are not immune to this. In a study presented at the international shock wave congress in San Sebastián, Spain in 2017, 37 clinical trials and a clinical protocol on the use of waves in shoulder pathology were evaluated by Moya et al. [37]. The authors concluded that in 70% of them, the inclusion and/or exclusion criteria were insufficient or inadequate. This included studies that favored the use of focused shock waves and radial pressure waves and those that reported poor results. Besides this, industry influence on the results of clinical studies has also been demonstrated in other fields of orthopedics and trauma [38-42]. The contribution and role of the industry in the development of shock waves have been fundamental. Unfortunately, consciously, or unconsciously, this can generate a bias in the researchers. A paper presented at the same congress by Alfano et al. concluded that a tendency toward an increased frequency of favorable outcomes was found in shockwave papers supported by the industry [43].

What is the Role of Scientific Societies?
Given this enormous anarchy of concepts, methodologies, and criteria, the role of scientific societies is a key factor. Professional medical associations play a very important role in research, education, and dissemination of medical practices. Scientific societies and their members, who are ultimately responsible for therapeutic indications, must be considered as an  essential participant in decision-making, which cannot remain solely in the hands of the market or on organizations to which the system assigns the role of judges. Scientific societies must assume their role being aware of their great responsibility. Health professionals, medical institutions, and the general public trust medical societies recommendations and guidelines. There are situations and risks of bias that should be avoid. The existence of scientific societies dedicated to the study of a specific therapeutic method implies the risk of significant bias. There is the possibility of plunging into a “collective psychosis” in which each one wants to demonstrate a greater ineffability of the method or new indications. In recent years, there has also been an increasing awareness about the extent of the financial links between medical device companies and medical institutions [44]. Institutional academic-industry relationships exist when academic institutions, or any of their senior officials, have a financial relationship with or financial interests in a public or private company [45]. It has been stated that to keep independence and integrity, “leaders of scientific associations must be free of all financial ties with the industry” [46, 47]. Although many institutions have issued conflict of interest guidelines, they are not always clear enough and their implementation is not easy. As Rothman has stated, “education must be carefully distinguished from marketing [44].” Grimshaw and Russell [48] concluded that the guidelines and recommendations of scientific societies do improve clinical practice but must be formulated based on credible evidence without conflicts of interest and on a crystal-clear methodology. In the case of radial pressure waves and focused shock waves, for years, we have followed the recommendations of the International Society for Medical Shockwave Treatment [49]. The indications have been classified into: 1 – Approved standard indications, 2 – Common empirically-tested clinical uses, 3 – Exceptional indications-expert indications, and 4 – Experimental indications. In the era before evidence-based medicine, this classification may have been useful, but it is currently not enough. It is not clear which is the methodology or level of
evidence considered to include each indication in the various categories; how these four categories are defined; what conditions a professional must meet to be considered an expert; etc. The insufficiency of this model is demonstrated by the fact that many health agencies and medical insurers do not accept it.

What is the Way we Choose?
Should a scientific society put aside what happens in the real world and continue to recycle information among a small group of members as if the method were unanimously accepted? We believe that it is important to start from a clear diagnosis of the situation. We must understand that better than looking for new indications or disseminating the use of the technique and promising information not yet published, scientific society’s members should contribute with high level of evidence studies demonstrating that radial pressure waves and focused shock waves are highly effective in specific medical indications. The way for that is to define a clear and reproducible methodology and the
development of consensus reports that represent the opinion of an ex pert workgroup. A first attempt was done few years ago. Indications in the field of orthopedics and traumatology were classified according to the recommendation
scale proposed by the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [19]. This initiative has been taken as a basis for designing the recommendation guides by the International Federation of Shockwave Treatment. (Fig. 2) An international initiative has been launched in this regard. However, the contribution of shock wave experts and epidemiologists is not enough. Experts and institutions dedicated to the pathology of each of the anatomical regions of the musculoskeletal system must actively participate. The preparation of recommendations for the use of shock waves should not only be the result of specialists in the subject, other specialties that are not directly involved in the technique have much to contribute. It is time to put vertical thinking aside and to promote interdisciplinary proposals putting lateral thinking into practice [1]. Scientific and technological development, understood as a means for the well-being of patients, must be above any sectorial or commercial interest. It is the responsibility of all stakeholders to consistently engage in demonstrating the usefulness of any method. Seeking excellence is always a laudable goal, but it should never become an excuse to choose the easy path of lack of action. We know that this Journal still has a lot to grow from a methodological point of view, but we believe that it is the first step in a dynamic process of growth. As the Chinese philosopher Lao-tse said: “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a first step.” If we are capable of making that long trip, we will make a great contribution to the treatment of many cases that are difficult to solve with other methods.

 

 

How to Cite this article: Moya D, Wei S, Simplicio C, Guiloff L, Kwangsun P, Di Giorno A, Valle O, Pous J, Chidambaram R, Serrano E, Burgos Elía V, Terán P, Tutte L, Gómez F, Patiño P, Solano G, Tejedas JB, Ajisivinac S, Moya G | Scientific Evidence of Shock Waves in Orthopedics and Traumatology: It is Time to Set the Record Straight. | Journal of Regenerative Science | Jan – June 2023; 3(1):01-06.


 

  (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)


Focused Shockwaves in Musculoskeletal Pathology: A trip to Cosenza

Editorial | Vol 3 | Issue 1 |  Jan – June 2023 | page: 07-08 | Donà Alessandro, Cempini Matteo, Giuseppe Porcellini, Fabio Catani

DOI: 10.13107/jrs.2023.v03.i01.69


Author: Donà Alessandro [1], Cempini Matteo [2], Giuseppe Porcellini [3], Fabio Catani [4]

[1] Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia,
[2] Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia,
[3] Direttore Unità di Ortopedia e traumatologia università di Modena e Reggio Emilia,
[4] Direttore scuola di Specializzazione di Ortopedia e Traumatologia Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Donà Alessandro,
Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia.
E-mail: alessandro.dona@edu.unife.it


Editorial:

 

On March 25, 2023, the congress on therapy with focused shockwaves in musculoskeletal pathology was held in the beautiful setting of the archbishop’s curia in the city of Cosenza.

The congress was attended by international experts in the treatment of tendinopathies and non-union.

The main topic of discussion was the comparison between conservative treatment of these pathologies and surgical treatment, and the comparison of the efficacy of shockwaves with other conservative methods.

The topics discussed were numerous, starting with the experience with the use of shockwaves by colleagues from Argentina with a lectio magistralis by Dr. Daniel Moya on the indications and application of this technique in their latitudes, opening an interesting discussion on treatment protocols (pathology to be treated, number of sessions, and number of shockwaves delivered), and showing how a uniform consensus regarding the clinical practice of this technique has not yet been reached, although the results in the literature are encouraging.

The biological aspects of shockwave functioning were addressed thanks to the experience of Dr. Maria Cristina D’Agostino, highlighting how shockwaves primarily have an effect on the stimulation of endothelial cells for the modulation of inflammation, thanks to the production of TLR-3, creating an early pro-inflammatory effect, followed by a delayed anti-inflammatory response. Furthermore, the main mechanisms of action of shockwaves, such as the synthesis of growth factors (VEGF, BMPs), angiogenesis and vasculogenesis, lymphangiogenesis, and stimulation of the proliferation, differentiation, and migration of stem cells were addressed. At the basis of these biological mechanisms would be macrophages, and shockwaves are responsible for modulating the cross-road of macrophages from the M1 (pro-inflammatory) phase to the M2 (anti-inflammatory and regenerative) phase. Regarding delayed bone healing, it emerged that shockwaves stimulate a reduction of the RANKL/OPG factor, generating an inhibition of osteoclastogenesis.

The presentation by the working group of Dr. Elizaveta Kon on orthobiology in tissue regeneration in both tendinopathies and delayed healing was also interesting, showing technological novelties such as Lipocell in the treatment of osteoarthritis and synthetic bone substitutes used in cases of non-union.

A large space was reserved for the analysis of the biological aspects and risk factors of rotator cuff tendinopathies, with the report by Prof. Gumina, who showed the histological differences between healthy tendon tissue and pathological tendon tissue, highlighting how microcirculation deficit is at the basis of these histopathological conditions.

Prof. Porcellini instead showed the main biomechanical and etiological aspects involved in calcific and non-calcific rotator cuff tendinopathies, analyzing the classification and diagnostic aspects. Particular attention was paid to therapeutic indications in the treatment of shoulder tendinopathies, evaluating the possible indications for conservative treatment or surgical treatment, showing the results obtained in the treatment with focused shockwaves in over 200 carefully selected patients based on the type of calcific tendinopathy present, and highlighting some prognostic factors, such as the size and morphological characteristics of calcific deposits, which are decisive in obtaining satisfactory results with shockwaves.

The central part of the conference was finally the analysis of the results obtained from the multicenter study coordinated by Dr. Alfonso Di Giorno, involving the universities of Modena and Reggio Emilia, La Sapienza University, Magna Grecia University and Tor Vergata University where various pathological conditions were treated such as elbow epicondylitis and epitrocleitis, Non-Union, rotator cuff tendinopathies, and Trochanteritis. The results of the study showed that shockwave therapy in the treatment of these pathologies is a safe and reliable method that provides good outcomes in terms of pain response and recovery of function if used by expert personnel able to provide the correct indications and therefore the correct use of such treatment method.

 

 

How to Cite this article: Alessandro D, Matteo C, Porcellini G, Catani F. Focused Shockwaves in Musculoskeletal Pathology: A trip to Cosenza. | Journal of Regenerative Science | Jan – June 2023; 3(1):07-08.


 

  (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)