Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Nan Lou of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Key Laboratory of Wound Repair and Regeneration of PLA, College of Life Sciences, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Int Wound J. 2018 Aug;15(4):590-599. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12902. Epub 2018 Apr 19.
This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and conventional wound therapy (CWT) for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds. All English-language articles on ESWT for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds indexed in PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and HealthSTAR published prior to June 2017 were included, as well as corresponding articles cited in reference lists of related review articles. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's "risk of bias" tool. Study design, subject demographics, wound aetiology, treatment protocols, assessment indexes, and follow-up duration were extracted. The fixed or random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled effect sizes according to studies' heterogeneity. Ten randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 473 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that ESWT statistically significantly increased the healing rate of acute and chronic soft tissue wounds 2.73-fold (odds ratio, OR = 3.73, 95% confidence interval, CI: 2.30-6.04, P < .001) and improved wound-healing area percentage by 30.45% (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) = 30.45; 95% CI: 23.79-37.12; P < .001). ESWT reduced wound-healing time by 3 days (SMD = -2.86, 95% CI:-3.78 to -1.95, P < .001) for acute soft tissue wounds and 19 days (SMD = -19.11, 95% CI: -23.74 to -14.47, P < .001) for chronic soft tissue wounds and the risk of wound infection by 53% (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.24-0.92, P = .03) when compared with CWT alone. Serious adverse effects were not reported. ESWT showed better therapeutic effects on acute and chronic soft tissue wounds compared with CWT alone. However, higher-quality and well-controlled RCTs are needed to further assess the role of ESWT for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds.
本研究旨在评估和比较体外冲击波疗法(ESWT)和常规伤口治疗(CWT)治疗急性和慢性软组织伤口的效果。检索了 2017 年 6 月前在 PubMed、Medline、Embase、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册数据库、Cochrane 图书馆、物理治疗证据数据库和 HealthSTAR 中收录的关于 ESWT 治疗急性和慢性软组织伤口的所有英文文献,以及相关综述文章参考文献中引用的文章。使用 Cochrane 协作“偏倚风险”工具评估所选研究的方法学质量。提取研究设计、受试者人口统计学、伤口病因、治疗方案、评估指标和随访时间。根据研究的异质性,使用固定或随机效应模型计算合并效应大小。本系统评价和荟萃分析纳入了 10 项随机对照试验(RCT),涉及 473 例患者。荟萃分析显示,ESWT 使急性和慢性软组织伤口的愈合率显著提高 2.73 倍(比值比,OR = 3.73,95%置信区间,CI:2.30-6.04,P <.001),伤口愈合面积百分比提高 30.45%(标准化均数差(SMD)= 30.45;95%CI:23.79-37.12;P <.001)。ESWT 使急性软组织伤口的愈合时间减少 3 天(SMD = -2.86,95%CI:-3.78 至-1.95,P <.001),慢性软组织伤口的愈合时间减少 19 天(SMD = -19.11,95%CI:-23.74 至-14.47,P <.001),与单独 CWT 相比,伤口感染的风险降低 53%(OR = 0.47,95%CI:0.24-0.92,P =.03)。未报告严重不良事件。与单独 CWT 相比,ESWT 对急性和慢性软组织伤口具有更好的治疗效果。然而,需要更高质量和更好控制的 RCT 来进一步评估 ESWT 在治疗急性和慢性软组织伤口中的作用。