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.

  (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)

Review Article | Volume 3 | Issue 1 | JRS Jun – June 2023 | Page 09-14 | Daniel Moya, Achim M. Loske, Paul Hobrough , Carla Moya.
DOI: 10.13107/jrs.2023.v03.i01.70

Author: Daniel Moya [1], Achim M. Loske [2], Paul Hobrough [3], Carla Moya [4]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires, Argentina,
[2] Centro de Física Aplicada y Tecnología Avanzada, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Juriquilla, Querétaro, México,,

[3] The University of Northumbria – Newcastle upon Tyne, UK,

[4] Instituto Tecnológico de Buenos Aires, Argentina.

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

Abstract

Although shock waves have been present in nature since its origins, current knowledge took many centuries of study and research. The history of the development of the use of mechanical waves for therapeutic purposes has been a long process in which scientists from many countries contributed. The physical knowledge of waves, the development of generation sources, the first applications in kidney stones and the discovery of their biological impact have been milestones in this long process. The aim of this publication is to highlight previous discoveries that have not been described when analyzing the development of shock waves as a therapeutic tool.

Keywords: Shock waves, Radial pressure waves, History.

References:

1. Krehl P. History of shock waves. In: Ben-Dor G, Igra O, Elperin T, editors. Handbook of Shock Waves. Vol. 1. United States: Academic Press; 2001. p. 1-142.
2. Newton I. Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica; 2009. Available from: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/28233/28233-pdf.pdf Last accessed 29 Jan 2023
3. Goriely A, McMillen T. Shape of a cracking whip. Phys Rev Lett 2002;88:244301.
4. Lennauchfilm-Studio. He tamed the lightning. Science and technology film; 1957. Available from: https://www.calameo.com/read/00103816437ddb2395bc0
5. Bekaev AA, Sokovikov VK, Strokov PI. Electrohydraulic devices based on the yutkin effect. Russ Eng Res 2014;34:620-3.
6. Malinaric R, Mantica G, Martini M, Balzarini F, Mariano F, Marchi G, et al. The lifetime history of the first Italian public extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) lithotripter as a mirror of the evolution of endourology over the last decade. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023;20:4127.
7. Loske AM. Medical and biomedical applications of shock waves. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International; 2017. p. 55.
8. Coleman AJ, Saunders JE, Crum LA, Dyson M. Acoustic cavitation generated by an extracorporeal shockwave lithotripter. Ultrasound Med Biol 1987;13:69-76.
9. Delius M, Jordan M, Eizenhoefer H, Marlinghaus E, Heine G, Liebich HG, et al. Biological effects of shock waves: Kidney haemorrhage by shock waves in dogs–administration rate dependence. Ultrasound Med Biol 1988;14:689-94.
10. Schelling G, Delius M, Gschwender M, Grafe P, Gambihler S. Extracorporeal shock waves stimulate frog sciatic nerves indirectly via a cavitation-mediated mechanism. Biophys J 1994;66:133-40.
11. Angstman NB, Kiessling MC, Frank HG, Schmitz C. High interindividual variability in dose-dependent reduction in speed of movement after exposing elegans to shock waves. Front Behav Neurosci 2015;9:12.
12. Császár NB, Angstman NB, Milz S, Sprecher CM, Kobel P, Farhat M, et al. Radial shock wave devices generate cavitation. PLoS One 2015;10:e0140541.
13. Hazen RH, Boctor N, Brandes JA, Cody GD, Hemley RJ, Sharma A, et al. High pressure and the origin of life. J Phy Condens Matter 2022;14:11489.
14. Kaminski A, Fedorchak GR, Lammerding J. The cellular mastermind(?)-mechanotransduction and the nucleus. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 2014;126:157-203.
15. Mayhew E. The Invisible Killer of World War I: Blast Injury. Available from: https://www.knowitwall.com/episodes/the-invisible-killer-of-world-war-i-blast-injury Last accessed 29 Jan 2023
16. Shoja MM, Tubbs RS. Augusta Déjerine-Klumpke: The first female neuroanatomist. Clin Anat 2007;20:585-7.
17. Thiel M. Application of shock waves in medicine. Clin Orthop 2001;387:18-21.
18. Wang CJ. An overview of shock wave therapy in musculoskeletal disorders. Chang Gung Med J 2003;26:220-32.
19. Scott TE, Kirkman E, Haque M, Gibb IE, Mahoney P, Hardman JG. Primary blast lung injury-a review. Br J Anaesth 2017;118:311-6.
20. Mackenzie I, Tunnicliffe B, Clasper JC, Mahoney P, Kirkman E. What the intensive care doctor needs to know about blast-related lung injury. J Intensive Care Soc 2013;14:303-12.
21. Horrocks CL. Blast injuries: Biophysics, pathophysiology and management principles. J R Army Med Corps 2001;147:28-40.
22. Yang C, Dong-Hai Z, Ling-Ying L, Yong-Hui Y, Yang W, Li-Wei Z, et al. Author correction: Simulation of blast lung injury induced by shock waves of five distances based on finite element modeling of a three-dimensional rat. Sci Rep 2019;9:3440.
23. Delius M, Enders G, Heine G, Stark J, Remberger K, Brendel W. Biological effects of shock waves: Lung hemorrhage by shock waves in dogs–pressure dependence. Ultrasound Med Biol 1987;13:61-7.
24. Nouri-Majalan N, Masoumi R, Halvani A, Moghaddasi S. Lung contusion and cavitation with exudative plural effusion following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in an adult: A case report. J Med Case Rep 2010;4:293.
25. Yi JH, Wang D, Chen H, Li ZS, Hu LH. Lung contusion after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for pancreatic stones: A case report. Medicine (Baltimore) 2022;101:e30063.
26. Chaussy C, Eisenberger F, Forssmann B. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): A chronology. J Endourol 2007;21:1249-53.
27. Keller EX, Proietti S, Talso M, Emiliani E, Ploumidis A, Mantica G, et al. Prone versus supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature. Minerva Urol. Nephrol 2021;73:50-8.
28. Farr JB. Frank rieber: Obscure genius (Part 1). Lead Edge 2008;27:613-8.
29. Tefekli A, Cezayirli F. The history of urinary stones: In parallel with civilization. ScientificWorldJournal 2013;2013:423964.
30. Mulvaney WP. Attempted disintegration of calculi by ultrasonic vibrations. J Urol 1953;70:704-7.
31. European Museum of Urology (EMU). Available from: https://history.uroweb.org/history-of-urology/early-rologicalinterventions/lithotripsy/electrohydraulic-lithotripsy Last accessed 29 Jan 2023
32. Tufano A, Frisenda M, Rossi A, Viscuso P, Mantica G, Bove P, et al. External validation of Resorlu-Unsal stone score in predicting outcomes after retrograde intrarenal surgery. Experience from a single institution. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2022;94:311-4.
33. Haeusler E, Kiefer W. Anregung von Stoßwellen in Flüssigkeiten durch Hochgeschwindigkeitswassertropfen. [Excitation of shock waves in liquids by high-velocity water droplets] Verhandl. DPG (VI) 1971;6: K 36. (VI) 1971;6:K 36.
34. Eisenberger F, Chaussy CH, Wanner K. Extrakorporale anwen-dung von hochenergetischen stosswellen: Ein neuer aspekt in derbehandlung des harnsteinleidens. [Extracorporeal application of high-energy shock waves: A new aspect in the treatment of urinary stone disease.] Akt Urol 1977;8:3-15.
35. Chaussy CH, Schmiedt E, Forssmann B, Brendel W. Contact free renal stone destruction by means of shock waves. Eur Surg Res 1979;11:36.
36. Chaussy C, Eisenberger F, Wanner K. Die implantation humaner nierensteine: Ein einfachesexperimentelles steinmodell. [The implantation of human kidney stones: A simple experimental step model] Urol A 1977;16:35-8.
37. Forssmann B, Hepp W, Chaussy C, Jocham D, Schmiedt E, Brendel W. Prototyp für die klinischeanwendung der berührungsfreien nierensteinzertrümmerung durch stosswellen. [Prototype for the clinical application of non-contact urinary stone destruction by shock waves.] Biomed Tech 1980;25:414-6.
38. Lohrer H, Nauck T, Korakakis V, Malliaropoulos N. Historical ESWT paradigms are overcome: A narrative review. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:3850461.
39. Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E. Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. Lancet 1980;2:1265-8.
40. Haupt G. Use of extracorporeal shock waves in the treatment of pseudarthrosis, tendinopathy and other orthopedic diseases. J Urol 1997;158:4-11.
41. Pearson OM, Lieberman DE. The aging of Wolff‘s “law”: Ontogeny and responses to mechanical loading in cortical bone. Am J Phys Anthropol 2004;Suppl 39:63-99.
42. Thompson DA. On Growth and Form. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1917.
43. Thompson DA. In: Bonner JT, editor. On Growth and Form. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
44. Garduño FS, Sánchez JL. Las transformaciones de Thompson y las formas biológicas. [Thompson transformations and biological forms] Ciencias 2017;126, 42-53.
45. Iskratsch T, Wolfenson H, Sheetz MP. Appreciating force and shape-the rise of mechanotransduction in cell biology. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2014;15:825-33.
46. Lim CT, Bershadsky A, Sheetz MP. Mechanobiology. J R Soc Interface 2010;7 Suppl 3:S291-3.
47. Fung YC. Biomechanics: Mechanical properties of living tissues. New York: Springer; 1993. p. 165-219.
48. Martino F, Perestrelo AR, Vinarský V, Pagliari S, Forte G. Cellular mechanotransduction: From tension to function. Front Physiol 2018;9:824.
49. Jaalouk DE, Lammerding J. Mechanotransduction gone awry. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2009;10:63-73.
50. Iqbal J, Zaidi M. Molecular regulation of mechanotransduction. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005;328:751-5.
51. Graff J, Pastor J, Richter KD. Effect of high energy shock waves on bony tissue. Urol Res 1988;16:252-8.
52. Haupt G, Chvapil M. Effect of shock waves on the healing of partial-thickness wounds in piglets. J Surg Res 1990;49:45-8.
53. Haupt G, Haupt A, Chvapil M, Drach GW, Senge TH. Wound and fracture healing: n ew indication for extracorporealshock waves? J Endourol Suppl 1990;4:S54, abstract A-4.
54. Haupt G, Haupt A, Ekkernkamp A, Gerety B, Chvapil M. Influence of shock waves on fracture healing. Urology 1992;39:529-532. DOI: 10.1016/0090-4295(92)90009-l.

55. Wang FS, Wang CJ, Huang HC, Chung H, Chen RF, Yang KD. Physical shock wave mediates membrane hyperpolarization and Ras activation for osteogenesis in human bone marrow stromal cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2001;287:648-55.
56. Wang CJ, Huang HY, Pai CH. Shock wave-enhanced neovascularization at the tendon-bone-junction. An experiment in dogs. J Foot Ankle Surg 2002;41:16-22.
57. Brañes J, Contreras HR, Cabello P, Antonic V, Guiloff LJ, Brañes M. Shoulder rotator cuff responses to extracorporeal shockwave therapy: Morphological and immunohistochemical analysis. Shoulder Elbow 2012;4:163-8.
58. Gollmann-Tepeköylü C, Pölzl L, Graber M, Hirsch J, Nägele F, Lobenwein D, et al. miR-19a-3p containing exosomes improve function of ischaemic myocardium upon shock wave therapy. Cardiovasc Res 2020;116:1226-36.
59. Gloeck TM. Effects of radial extracorporeal shock waves on healthy bone tissue in rabbit models. Complete copy of the dissertation approved by the Faculty of Medicine of the Technical University of Munich for obtaining the academic degree of Doctor of Medicine. Available from: https://d-nb.info/994118236/34 Last accessed 29 Jan 2023
60. Horn CP. Effect of extracorporeal high-energy shock waves on bacteria and their interaction with antibiotics. Complete copy of the dissertation approved by the Faculty of Medicine of the Technical University of Munich for obtaining the academic degree of Doctor of Medicine. Available from: https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/doc/620254/620254.pdf Last accessed 29 Jan 2023
61. Karpman RR, Magee FP, Gruen TW, Mobley T. Work-in-progress #1. The lithotriptor and its potential use in the revision of total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Rev 1987;16:38-42.
62. Karpman RR, Magee FP, Gruen TW, Mobley T. The Lithotriptor and its potential use in the revision of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2001;387:4-7.
63. Valchanov V, Michailov P, Patrashkov T. New Possibilities of HM-3 lithotriptor for treatment of disturbed bone union. Read at World Congress on ESWL and Endourology, Kyoto, Japan; 1989.
64. Valchanov VD, Michailov P. High energy shock waves in the treatment of delayed and nonunion fractures. Int Orthop 1991;15:181-4.
65. Valchanov VD. Method and Aparattus for Medical Treatment of Pathological State of Bones. US Patent 4979501; 1990. Available from: https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/4979501 Last accessed 29 Jan 2023
66. Haist J. Die osteorestauration via stobwellenanwendung. Eine neue moglichkeit zur therapie der gestorten knochernen konsolidierung. [Osteorestoration via shock wave application. A new possibility for the therapy of disturbed bony consolidation. In: Chaussy C, Eisenberger F, Jocham D Wilbert D, editors. Die StoOwelle-Forschung und Klinik. Tubingen: Attempto Verlag; 1995. p. 157.
67. Dahmen GP, Meiss L, Nam VC, Franke R, Gonchars V. Extrakorporale stonwellentherapie (ESWT) im knochennahen weichteilbereich an der schulter. [Extracorporeal sound wave therapy (ESWT) in the soft tissue area close to the bone on the shoulder.] Erste therapieergebnisse. Ext Orthopaed 1992;15:25.
68. Dahmen GP, Nam VC, Meiss L. Extrakorporale Stoßwellentherapie (ESWT) zur Behandlung von Knochennahen Weichteilschmerzen. Indikation, Technik und Vorläufige Ergebnisse. Konsensus Workshop der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Stoßwellenlithotripsie. [Indication, Technique and Preliminary Results. Consensus workshop of the German Society for Shockwave Lithotripsy.] Tübingen: Attempto-Verlag; 1993. p. 143-8.
69. Dahmen GP, Franke R, Gonchars V, Poppe S, Lentrodt S, Lichtenberger S, et al. Die behandlung knochennaher weichteilschmerzen mit extrakorporaler stosswellentherapie (ESWT), Indikation, Technik und bisherige therapie. [The treatment of soft tissue pain close to the bone with extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), indication, technique and previous therapy.] In: Chaussy C, Eisenberger F, Jochum D, Wilbert D, editors. Die Stoßwelle-Forschung und Klinik. Tübingen, Germany: Attempo Verlag; 1995. p. 175-86.
70. Loew M, Jurgowski W. Initial experiences with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in treatment of tendinosis calcarea of the shoulder. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1993;131:470-3.
71. Loew M, Jurgowski W, Mau H, Perlick L, Kuszniercak D. Die wirkung extrakorporal erzeugter hochenergetischer storwellen auf den klinischen, rontgenologischen undhistologischen verlauf der tendinosis calcarea der schulter-eine prospektive studie. [The effect of extracorporeally generated high-energy disturbance waves on the clinical, radiological and histological course of tendinosis calcarea of the shoulder – a prospective study.] In: Chaussy C, Eisenberger F, Jocham D, Wilbert D, editors. Die StoRwelle-Forschung und Klinik. Tubingen: Attempto Verlag; 1995. p. 153.
72. Loew M, Daecke W, Kusnierczak D, Rahmanzadeh M, Ewerbeck V. Shock-wave therapy is effective for chronic calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81:863-7.
73. Haupt G, Katzmeier P. Anwendung der hochenergetischen extrakorporalen Stoßwellentherapie bei pseudarthrosen, tendinosis calcarea der schulter und ansatz-tendinosen. [Application of high-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy for pseudarthrosis, tendinosis calcarea of the shoulder and insertion tendinosis.] In: Chaussy C, Eisenberger F, Jocham D, Wilbert D, editors. Die Stoßwelle-Forschung und Klinik. Tübingen: Attempto Verlag; 1995. p. 143-6.
74. Spindler A, Berman A, Lucero E, Braier M. Extracorporeal shock wave treatment for chronic calcific tendinitis of the shoulder. J Rheumatol 1998;25:1161-3.
75. Rompe JD, Hope C, Kullmer K, Heine J, Burger R. Analgesic effect of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy on chronic tennis elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996;78:233-7.
76. Rompe JD, Hopf C, Nafe B, Burger R. Low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy for painful heel: A prospective controlled single-blind study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1996;115:75-9.
77. Perlick L, Boxberg W, Giebel G. High energy shock wave treatment of the painful heel spur. Unfallchirur 1998;101:914-8.
78. Dahmen G, Haupt G, Rompe JD, Loew M, Haist J, Schleberger R. Standortbestimmung der arbeitsgruppe orthopädische stoßwellenbehandlungen. [Position determination of the working group orthopedic shock wave treatments.] In: Chaussy C, Eisenberger F, Jocham D, Wilbert D, editors. Die Stoßwelle-Forschung und Klinik. Tübingen, Germany: Attempto Verlag; 2015. p. 137-42.
79. Ueberle F, Rad AJ. Ballistic pain therapy devices: Measurement of pressure pulse parameters. Biomed Tech 2012;57 Suppl 1:700-3.
80. Loske A, Moya D. Shock waves and radial pressure waves: Time to put a clear nomenclature into practice. J Regen Sci 2021;1:4-8.

[Full Text HTML] [Full Text PDF]