Clinical Study on Appropriate Energy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave for Rotator Cuff Non-calcific Tendinopathy Treatment

Original Article | Vol 3 | Issue 2 |  July-December 2023 | page: 47-51 | Jin Xi, Li Jie, Li Jin, Luo Hao, Zhang Liheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/jrs.2023.v03.i02.103

Author: Jin Xi [1], Li Jie [2], Li Jin [2], Luo Hao [2], Zhang Liheng [2]

[1] Graduate Union of Changchun University of Chinese Medicine, Changchun China.
[2] Department of Sports medicine and joint surgery Jilin Provincial People’s Hospital, Changchun, China.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Zhang Liheng,
Department of Sports medicine and joint surgery Jilin Provincial People’s Hospital, Changchun, China.
E-mail: 1987174487@qq.com

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to investigate the short-term clinical efficacy of extracorporeal shock waves with different energy levels on rotator cuff non-calcific tendinopathy.
Materials and Methods: A total of 139 patients with rotator cuff rotator non-calcific tendinopathy were randomly divided into eight groups based on the different energy levels of the Dornier Aries smart focus shock wave therapy device: Level 5, 2000 shocks (0.062 mJ/mm2), Level 6, 2000 shocks (0.084 mJ/mm2), Level 7, 2000 shocks (0.096 mJ/mm2), Level 8, 2000 shocks (0.117 mJ/mm2), Level 5, 3000 shocks (0.062 mJ/mm2), Level 6, 3000 shocks (0.084 mJ/mm2), Level 7, 3000 shocks (0.096 mJ/mm2), and Level 8, 3000 shocks (0.117 mJ/mm2). Each
group received shock wave treatment corresponding to the respective energy level and shock count. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and Constant-Murley score (CMS) were compared before and 1, 2, and 4 weeks after treatment to determine the short-term efficacy.
Results: The VAS scores of all groups significantly decreased at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after treatment compared to before treatment. The VAS score of the Level 7, 2000 shocks (0.096 mJ/mm2) group was significantly lower than the other groups (P < 0.05). The CMS scores of all groups significantly increased at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after treatment compared to before treatment. The CMS score of the Level 7, 2000 shocks (0.096 mJ/mm2) group was significantly higher than the other groups (P < 0.05). There was significant statistical difference in the effective rate among the eight groups (P > 0.05). No serious adverse reactions were observed in any group before or after the treatment.
Conclusion: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for rotator cuff rotator non-calcific tendinopathy can alleviate shoulder joint pain, improve shoulder joint function, and enhance patients quality of life with good efficacy. The optimal therapeutic effect was observed at an energy level of 0.096 mJ/mm2 and 2000 shocks.
Keywords: Rotator cuff injury, Rotator cuff non-calcific tendinopathy, Extracorporeal shock wave therapy

References:

1. Doiron-Cadrin P, Lafrance S, Saulnier M, Cournoyer É, Roy JS, Dyer JO, et al. Shoulder rotator cuff disorders: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and semantic analyses of recommendations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2020;101:1233-42.
2. Dedes V, Tzirogiannis K, Polikandrioti M, Dede AM, Nikolaidis C, Mitseas A, et al. Comparison of radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy versus ultrasound therapy in the treatment of rotator cuff tendinopathy. Folia Med (Plovdiv) 2019;61:612-9.
3. Weber S, Chahal J. Management of rotator cuff injuries. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2020;28:193-201.
4. Neer CS 2nd. Anterior acromioplasty for the chronic impingement syndrome in the shoulder: A preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1972;54:41-50.
5. Guǎngbin Y. Visual analog scale. Chin J Joint Surg 2014;8:273.
6. Conboy VB, Morris RW, Kiss J, Carr AJ. An evaluation of the constant-murley shoulder assessment. Bone Joint Surg Br 1996;78:229-32.
7. Narvani AA, Imam MA, Godenèche A, Calvo E, Corbett S, Wallace AL, et al. Degenerative rotator cuff tear, repair or not repair? A review of current evidence. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2020;102:248-55.
8. Yamamoto A, Takagishi K, Osawa T, Yanagawa T, Nakajima D, Shitara H, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of a rotator cuff tear in the general population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010;19:116-20.
9. Ichinose T, Shitara H, Tajika T, Kobayashi T, Yamamoto A, Hamano N, et al. Factors affecting the onset and progression of rotator cuff tears in the general population. Sci Rep 2021;11:1858.
10. Bhatia DN, Debeer JF, Toit DF. Association of a large lateral extension of the acromion with rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg 2006;88:1889; author reply 1889-90.
11. De Sire A, Moggio L, Demeco A, Fortunato F, Spanò R, Aiello V, et al. Efficacy of rehabilitative techniques in reducing hemiplegic shoulder pain in stroke: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2022;65:101602.
12. Huang Y, Chai S, Wang D, Li W, Zhang X. Efficacy of eutectic mixture of local anesthetics on pain control during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit 2020;26:e921063.
13. Liang H, Jia H, Zhu J, Hu F, Li H, Xiao J, et al. Guidelines for Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy of Musculoskeletal Disorders in China (2023 Edition) [J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Frontiers (Electronic Edition), 2023, 15(09): 1-20.
14. Yörüközgü AC, Şavkin R, Büker N, Alsayani KY. Is there a relation between rotator cuff injury and core stability? J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2019;32:445-52.

[Full Text HTML] [Full Text PDF]