Rehabilitation, Nursing Science and Sports Department, University Medical Centre Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands,
Sports Med. 2013 Dec;43(12):1315-33. doi: 10.1007/s40279-013-0087-0.
BACKGROUND: Medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) is a common exercise-induced leg injury among athletes and military personnel. Several treatment options have been described in the literature, but it remains unclear which treatment is most effective. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of any intervention in the treatment of MTSS. STUDY SELECTION: Published or non-published studies, reporting randomized or non-randomized controlled trials of any treatment in subjects with MTSS were eligible for inclusion. Treatments were assessed for effects on pain, time to recovery or global perceived effect. DATA SOURCES: Computerized bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and SPORTDiscus) and trial registries were searched for relevant reports, from their inception to 1 June 2012. Grey literature was searched for additional relevant reports. STUDY APPRAISAL: The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to appraise study quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) whereas the Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to appraise non-randomized trials. The 'levels of evidence', according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, addressed the impact of the assessed trials. Two reviewers independently performed the search for articles, study selection, data extraction and appraised methodological quality. RESULTS: Eleven trials were included in this systematic review. All RCTs revealed a high risk of bias (Level 3 of evidence). Both non-randomized clinical trials were found to be of poor quality (Level 4 of evidence). RCTs, studying the effect of a lower leg brace versus no lower leg brace, and iontophoresis versus phonophoresis, were pooled using a fixed-effects model. No significant differences were found for lower leg braces (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.06; 95 % CI -0.44 to 0.32, p = 0.76), or iontophoresis (SMD 0.09; 95 % CI -0.50 to 0.68, p = 0.76). Iontophoresis, phonophoresis, ice massage, ultrasound therapy, periosteal pecking and extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) could be effective in treating MTSS when compared with control (Level 3 to 4 of evidence). Low-energy laser treatment, stretching and strengthening exercises, sports compression stockings, lower leg braces and pulsed electromagnetic fields have not been proven to be effective in treating MTSS (level 3 of evidence). CONCLUSION: None of the studies are sufficiently free from methodological bias to recommend any of the treatments investigated. Of those examined, ESWT appears to have the most promise.
背景:胫骨内侧应力综合征(MTSS)是运动员和军人中常见的运动引起的腿部损伤。文献中描述了几种治疗方法,但哪种治疗方法最有效尚不清楚。
目的:本系统评价旨在评估任何干预措施治疗 MTSS 的效果。
研究选择:发表或未发表的研究,报告了 MTSS 受试者的任何治疗的随机或非随机对照试验,均符合纳入标准。治疗方法评估了对疼痛、恢复时间或整体感知效果的影响。
数据来源:计算机化文献数据库(MEDLINE、CENTRAL、EMBASE、CINAHL、PEDro 和 SPORTDiscus)和试验注册处,从成立到 2012 年 6 月 1 日搜索相关报告。还搜索了灰色文献以获取其他相关报告。
研究评估:使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估随机临床试验(RCT)的研究质量,而使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估非随机试验。根据牛津循证医学中心,“证据水平”解决了评估试验的影响。两名审查员独立进行了文章搜索、研究选择、数据提取和方法学质量评估。
结果:本系统评价共纳入 11 项试验。所有 RCT 均显示出高偏倚风险(证据水平 3)。两项非随机临床试验被认为质量较差(证据水平 4)。使用固定效应模型对研究小腿支具与无小腿支具和离子电渗疗法与声透疗法的 RCT 进行了汇总。小腿支具(标准化均数差 [SMD] -0.06;95%CI -0.44 至 0.32,p=0.76)或离子电渗疗法(SMD 0.09;95%CI -0.50 至 0.68,p=0.76)均无显著差异。与对照组相比,离子电渗疗法、声透疗法、冰按摩、超声疗法、骨膜啄击和体外冲击波疗法(ESWT)可能有效治疗 MTSS(证据水平 3 至 4)。低能量激光治疗、伸展和强化运动、运动压缩袜、小腿支具和脉冲电磁场尚未被证明能有效治疗 MTSS(证据水平 3)。
结论:没有一项研究在方法学上没有偏见,可以推荐任何一种治疗方法。在检查过的方法中,ESWT 似乎最有希望。