Rompe Jan D, Nafe Bernhard, Furia John P, Maffulli Nicola
OrthoTrauma Clinic, Kirchheimer Str. 60, 67269 Gruenstadt, Germany.
Am J Sports Med. 2007 Mar;35(3):374-83. doi: 10.1177/0363546506295940. Epub 2007 Jan 23.
Few randomized controlled trials compare different methods of management in chronic tendinopathy of the main body of tendo Achillis.
To compare the effectiveness of 3 management strategies-group 1, eccentric loading; group 2, repetitive low-energy shock-wave therapy (SWT); and group 3, wait and see-in patients with chronic tendinopathy of the main body of tendo Achillis.
Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.
Seventy-five patients with a chronic recalcitrant (>6 months) noninsertional Achilles tendinopathy were enrolled in a randomized controlled study. All patients had received unsuccessful management for >3 months, including at least (1) peritendinous local injections, (2) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and (3) physiotherapy. A computerized random-number generator was used to draw up an allocation schedule. Analysis was on intention-to-treat basis.
At 4 months from baseline, the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA)-A score increased in all groups, from 51 to 76 points in group 1 (eccentric loading), from 50 to 70 points in group 2 (repetitive low-energy SWT), and from 48 to 55 points in group 3 (wait and see). Pain rating decreased in all groups, from 7 to 4 points in group 1, from 7 to 4 points in group 2, and from 8 to 6 points in group 3. Fifteen of 25 patients in group 1 (60%), 13 of 25 patients in group 2 (52%), and 6 of 25 patients in Group 3 (24%) reported a Likert scale of 1 or 2 points ("completely recovered" or "much improved"). For all outcome measures, groups 1 and 2 did not differ significantly. For all outcome measures, groups 1 and 2 showed significantly better results than group 3.
At 4-month follow-up, eccentric loading and low-energy SWT showed comparable results. The wait-and-see strategy was ineffective for the management of chronic recalcitrant tendinopathy of the main body of the Achilles tendon.
很少有随机对照试验比较跟腱主体慢性肌腱病的不同治疗方法。
比较3种治疗策略的效果——第1组,离心负荷;第2组,重复性低能量冲击波疗法(SWT);第3组,观察等待——用于跟腱主体慢性肌腱病患者。
随机对照试验;证据等级,1级。
75例慢性顽固性(>6个月)非止点性跟腱炎患者纳入一项随机对照研究。所有患者接受>3个月的治疗均未成功,包括至少(1)腱周局部注射、(2)非甾体类抗炎药和(3)物理治疗。使用计算机随机数字生成器制定分配方案。分析基于意向性治疗原则。
从基线开始4个月时,所有组的维多利亚运动评估(VISA)-A评分均升高,第1组(离心负荷)从51分升至76分,第2组(重复性低能量SWT)从50分升至70分,第3组(观察等待)从48分升至55分。所有组的疼痛评分均降低,第1组从7分降至4分,第2组从7分降至4分,第3组从8分降至6分。第1组25例患者中有15例(60%)、第2组25例患者中有13例(52%)、第3组25例患者中有6例(24%)报告Likert评分为1或2分(“完全恢复”或“明显改善”)。对于所有结局指标,第1组和第2组无显著差异。对于所有结局指标,第1组和第2组的结果均显著优于第3组。
在4个月随访时,离心负荷和低能量SWT显示出相似的结果。观察等待策略对慢性顽固性跟腱主体肌腱病的治疗无效。