Department of Sport & Exercise Medicine, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, United Kingdom.
School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, United Kingdom; and.
Clin J Sport Med. 2020 Jan;30(1):14-19. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000580.
To compare the outcomes for patients with chronic noninsertional Achilles tendinopathy following extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and high-volume image-guided injection (HVIGI).
Prospective cohort study.
Hospital-based Sports Medicine Outpatient Clinic.
Sixty-three consecutive patients with chronic noninsertional Achilles tendinopathy, treated with ESWT (n = 22) or HVIGI (n = 41), with minimum 3-month follow-up. Mean age was 51.2 years, and mean duration of symptoms was 27.8 months.
Patients received either 3 sessions of ESWT (1 session per week) or a single ultrasound-guided HVIGI (10 mL of 1% lidocaine and 40 mLs of sterile saline). All patients received standardized aftercare, including continuation of a structured home exercise program of flexibility and eccentric strengthening exercises.
Zero to 10 visual analog scale (VAS) for self-reported "average pain" and "average stiffness" values. In addition, Victoria Institute of Sport-Achilles questionnaire, (VISA-A), and Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ).
This study demonstrated statistically significant improvements in self-reported measures of pain and stiffness following either procedure. At 3 months, VAS (pain) was improved from 6.74 ± 1.31 to 3.57 ± 2.37 (P < 0.001) following HVIGI and from 6.57 ± 1.61 to 4.35 ± 2.55 (P = 0.002) following ESWT. At 3 months, VISA-A improved from 35% ± 17% to 51% ± 22% (P < 0.001) following HVIGI and from 34% ± 15% to 49% ± 15% (P < 0.001) following ESWT. Statistically significant improvements were only recorded at 6 weeks for ESWT and at 3 months for HVIGI using MOXFQ. No statistically significant differences were seen between the groups at any period studied.
Patients improved to statistically significant extent following either a HVIGI or ESWT procedure, with no significant differences seen between the groups. The small sample sizes in this pragmatic study are noted, which limit interpretation, and larger more robust studies are required to investigate this further.
This pragmatic prospective cohort study demonstrates improvements following either ESWT or HVIGI procedures, with no significant differences seen between the groups.
比较体外冲击波疗法(ESWT)和高容量图像引导注射(HVIGI)治疗慢性非插入性跟腱病患者的疗效。
前瞻性队列研究。
医院基础运动医学门诊。
63 例慢性非插入性跟腱病患者,接受 ESWT(n = 22)或 HVIGI(n = 41)治疗,随访至少 3 个月。平均年龄为 51.2 岁,平均症状持续时间为 27.8 个月。
患者接受 3 次 ESWT(每周 1 次)或单次超声引导 HVIGI(10 mL 1%利多卡因和 40 mL 无菌盐水)。所有患者均接受标准化的康复治疗,包括继续进行结构家庭锻炼计划,包括灵活性和离心强化锻炼。
自我报告的“平均疼痛”和“平均僵硬”值的 0 到 10 分视觉模拟量表(VAS)。此外,维多利亚运动跟腱问卷(VISA-A)和曼彻斯特-牛津足部问卷(MOXFQ)。
本研究表明,两种治疗方法均能显著改善自我报告的疼痛和僵硬程度。治疗后 3 个月,HVIGI 组的 VAS(疼痛)从 6.74 ± 1.31 改善至 3.57 ± 2.37(P < 0.001),ESWT 组从 6.57 ± 1.61 改善至 4.35 ± 2.55(P = 0.002)。治疗后 3 个月,HVIGI 组的 VISA-A 从 35% ± 17%改善至 51% ± 22%(P < 0.001),ESWT 组从 34% ± 15%改善至 49% ± 15%(P < 0.001)。仅在 ESWT 的 6 周和 HVIGI 的 3 个月时记录到 MOXFQ 的统计学显著改善。在研究期间的任何阶段,两组之间均未观察到统计学显著差异。
患者接受 HVIGI 或 ESWT 治疗后均有显著改善,两组间无显著差异。本研究的实用性前瞻性队列研究表明,ESWT 或 HVIGI 治疗后均有改善,两组间无显著差异。本研究的样本量较小,限制了其解释,需要进行更大、更有力的研究来进一步探讨。
本实用性前瞻性队列研究表明,ESWT 或 HVIGI 治疗后均有改善,两组间无显著差异。