• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

超声引导下针刺联合高能量或低能量体外冲击波治疗与单纯针刺治疗钙化性肩袖损伤的回顾性研究

Ultrasound-Guided Needling Combined With High- or Low-Energy Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Versus Needling Alone for Calcified Rotator Cuff: A Retrospective Study.

作者信息

Zhang Hairui, Wang Yaxiong, Yang Jingjing, Zhao Zhiyao, Zhang Wei, Liu Xiaoning

机构信息

Orthopaedic Medical Center, Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.

H. Z. and Y. W. contributed equally to this work.

出版信息

Orthop J Sports Med. 2024 Nov 4;12(11):23259671241275078. doi: 10.1177/23259671241275078. eCollection 2024 Nov.

DOI:10.1177/23259671241275078
PMID:39502375
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11536864/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Rotator cuff calcific tendinitis is a common shoulder joint disorder. Nonsurgical treatment methods, including multiple needling and extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), can effectively treat calcific tendinitis.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical results and radiological outcomes of treatment with ultrasound-guided needling (UGN) alone versus UGN with high-energy ESWT (UGN-H) or UGN with low-energy ESWT (UGN-L) in patients with calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Outpatient records for patients with calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were grouped into those treated with UGN-H, UGN-L, or controls with UGN alone. The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, Constant-Murley scores, and radiographic evaluation to assess calcification size were available before treatment and at 3, 6, and 12 months after the first treatment. Post event pairwise analysis to analyze score differences between treatment groups was used.

RESULTS

Overall, 130 patients were included for analysis (42 UGN-H, 44 UGN-L, and 44 with UGN alone). At 3 months, the VAS scores were UGN-H (4.13 ± 0.84; < .001) and UGN-L (4.47 ± 1.01; < .001) which were significantly better than UGN alone (5.35 ± 1.00) in terms of the VAS score; however, the difference was not significant between UGN-H and UGN-L. These differences persisted at months 6 and 12 (6 months: UGN-H, 2.66 ± 1.00; < .001; UGN-L, 3.16 ± 1.05; = .033; 12 months: UGN-H, 1.93 ± 0.43; < .001; UGN-L, 2.04 ± 0.46; < .001). The results of the ASES and Constant-Murley scores were similar to those of the VAS score. In terms of radiographic outcome, follow-up at months 3, 6, and 12 revealed that UGN-H and UGN-L were superior to UGN alone at removing calcification (median 95% CI; 3 months: UGN-H, 1.4 mm [1.08, 7.25 mm); = .002; UGN-L, 5.79 mm (1.17, 7.85 mm]; = .041; 6 months: UGN-H, 0.91 mm [0, 1.15 mm); < .001; UGN-L, 1.13 mm [0.84, 5.10 mm]; < .001; 12 months: UGN-H, 0 mm [0, 0 mm]; < .001; UGN-L, 0 mm (0, 4.33 mm]; = .023). There was no significant difference between UGN-H and UGN-L at the month 3 follow-up, but the month 6 and 12 follow-ups revealed that UGN-H was more effective at removing calcification compared with UGN-L.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated that, for pain relief and recovery of shoulder joint function, UGN + ESWT was significantly superior to UGN alone. No significant difference was observed between different energy levels of ESWT. UGN + ESWT was significantly superior to UGN alone on radiographic evaluation. Furthermore, UGN-H performed better radiographically with reducing calcifications compared with UGN-L at 12 months.

摘要

背景

肩袖钙化性肌腱炎是一种常见的肩关节疾病。非手术治疗方法,包括多针穿刺和体外冲击波疗法(ESWT),可以有效治疗钙化性肌腱炎。

目的

评估单纯超声引导下穿刺(UGN)与高能ESWT联合UGN(UGN-H)或低能ESWT联合UGN(UGN-L)治疗肩袖钙化性肌腱炎患者的临床疗效和影像学结果。

研究设计

队列研究;证据等级,3级。

方法

回顾性评估肩袖钙化性肌腱炎患者的门诊记录。患者分为接受UGN-H、UGN-L治疗的患者或仅接受UGN治疗的对照组。在治疗前以及首次治疗后3、6和12个月,可获得疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)、美国肩肘外科医师学会(ASES)评分、Constant-Murley评分以及用于评估钙化大小的影像学评估结果。采用事后成对分析来分析治疗组之间的评分差异。

结果

总体而言,纳入130例患者进行分析(42例接受UGN-H治疗,44例接受UGN-L治疗,44例仅接受UGN治疗)。在3个月时,VAS评分方面,UGN-H组(4.13±0.84;P<.001)和UGN-L组(4.47±1.01;P<.001)明显优于单纯UGN组(5.35±1.00);然而,UGN-H组和UGN-L组之间的差异不显著。这些差异在6个月和12个月时仍然存在(6个月:UGN-H组,2.66±1.00;P<.001;UGN-L组,3.16±1.05;P = .033;12个月:UGN-H组,1.93±0.43;P<.001;UGN-L组,2.04±0.46;P<.001)。ASES评分和Constant-Murley评分的结果与VAS评分相似。在影像学结果方面,3、6和12个月的随访显示,UGN-H组和UGN-L组在去除钙化方面优于单纯UGN组(中位数95%CI;3个月:UGN-H组,1.4 mm[1.08,7.25 mm];P = .002;UGN-L组,5.79 mm[1.17,7.85 mm];P = .041;6个月:UGN-H组,0.91 mm[0,1.15 mm];P<.001;UGN-L组,1.13 mm[0.84,5.10 mm];P<.001;12个月:UGN-H组,0 mm[0,未找到原文内容];P<.001;UGN-L组,0 mm[0,4.33 mm];P = .023)。在3个月随访时,UGN-H组和UGN-L组之间没有显著差异,但在6个月和12个月随访时发现,与UGN-L组相比,UGN-H组在去除钙化方面更有效。

结论

该研究表明,对于缓解疼痛和恢复肩关节功能,UGN联合ESWT明显优于单纯UGN。不同能量水平的ESWT之间未观察到显著差异。在影像学评估方面,UGN联合ESWT明显优于单纯UGN。此外,在12个月时,与UGN-L组相比,UGN-H组在减少钙化方面的影像学表现更好。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9d9a/11536864/9bd1497b4f76/10.1177_23259671241275078-fig5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9d9a/11536864/7ec00e80e820/10.1177_23259671241275078-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9d9a/11536864/64c4dd84e25e/10.1177_23259671241275078-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9d9a/11536864/73e648a56ce6/10.1177_23259671241275078-fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9d9a/11536864/21b4d936aa7e/10.1177_23259671241275078-fig4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9d9a/11536864/9bd1497b4f76/10.1177_23259671241275078-fig5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9d9a/11536864/7ec00e80e820/10.1177_23259671241275078-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9d9a/11536864/64c4dd84e25e/10.1177_23259671241275078-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9d9a/11536864/73e648a56ce6/10.1177_23259671241275078-fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9d9a/11536864/21b4d936aa7e/10.1177_23259671241275078-fig4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9d9a/11536864/9bd1497b4f76/10.1177_23259671241275078-fig5.jpg

相似文献

1
Ultrasound-Guided Needling Combined With High- or Low-Energy Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Versus Needling Alone for Calcified Rotator Cuff: A Retrospective Study.超声引导下针刺联合高能量或低能量体外冲击波治疗与单纯针刺治疗钙化性肩袖损伤的回顾性研究
Orthop J Sports Med. 2024 Nov 4;12(11):23259671241275078. doi: 10.1177/23259671241275078. eCollection 2024 Nov.
2
Comparing Ultrasound-Guided Needling Combined With a Subacromial Corticosteroid Injection Versus High-Energy Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Calcific Tendinitis of the Rotator Cuff: A Randomized Controlled Trial.超声引导下针刺联合肩峰下皮质类固醇注射与高能体外冲击波治疗肩袖钙化性肌腱炎的随机对照研究。
Arthroscopy. 2020 Jul;36(7):1823-1833.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.02.027. Epub 2020 Feb 28.
3
Chronic calcific tendonitis of the rotator cuff: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing operative and nonoperative interventions.肩袖慢性钙化性肌腱炎:手术与非手术干预的随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023 Aug;32(8):1746-1760. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.03.017. Epub 2023 Apr 18.
4
Which method is more effective in treatment of calcific tendinitis in the shoulder? Prospective randomized comparison between ultrasound-guided needling and extracorporeal shock wave therapy.哪一种方法在治疗肩部钙化性肌腱炎方面更有效?超声引导下针刺与体外冲击波治疗的前瞻性随机比较。
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Nov;23(11):1640-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.06.036. Epub 2014 Sep 12.
5
Arthroscopic Surgery Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Calcific Tendinitis of the Shoulder: A Retrospective Cohort Study.关节镜手术与非手术治疗肩钙化性肌腱炎的对比:一项回顾性队列研究。
Am J Sports Med. 2024 Feb;52(2):461-473. doi: 10.1177/03635465231217733.
6
Shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease with or without calcification.用于治疗伴或不伴钙化的肩袖疾病的冲击波疗法
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Mar 4;3(3):CD008962. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008962.pub2.
7
Extracorporeal shock wave therapy, ultrasound-guided percutaneous lavage, corticosteroid injection and combined treatment for the treatment of rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy: a network meta-analysis of RCTs.体外冲击波疗法、超声引导下经皮灌洗、皮质类固醇注射及联合治疗用于治疗肩袖钙化性肌腱炎:随机对照试验的网状Meta分析
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017 Apr;27(3):381-390. doi: 10.1007/s00590-016-1839-y. Epub 2016 Aug 23.
8
High-energy extracorporeal shock-wave therapy for treating chronic calcific tendinitis of the shoulder: a systematic review.高能体外冲击波治疗慢性钙化性肩袖肌腱炎:系统评价。
Ann Intern Med. 2014 Apr 15;160(8):542-9. doi: 10.7326/M13-1982.
9
Combined arthroscopic rotator cuff repair leads to better clinical outcomes than isolated removal of calcific deposits for shoulder calcific tendinitis: A 2- to 5-year follow-up study.对于肩部钙化性肌腱炎,关节镜下联合修复肩袖比单纯清除钙化沉积物能带来更好的临床效果:一项2至5年的随访研究。
Front Surg. 2022 Aug 17;9:912779. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.912779. eCollection 2022.
10
Long-term evolution of calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff: clinical and radiological evaluation 10 years after diagnosis.肩袖钙化性肌腱炎的长期演变:诊断 10 年后的临床和放射学评估。
J Orthop Traumatol. 2021 Oct 26;22(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s10195-021-00604-9.

本文引用的文献

1
Are corticosteroid injections needed after needling and lavage of calcific tendinitis? Randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.针刺和灌洗钙化性肌腱炎后是否需要皮质类固醇注射?随机、双盲、非劣效性试验。
Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78(6):837-843. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214971. Epub 2019 Apr 11.
2
Calcific deposit needling in combination with extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT): A proposed treatment for supraspinatus calcified tendinopathy.钙化沉积物针刺联合体外冲击波疗法(ESWT):一种针对冈上肌钙化性肌腱炎的拟议治疗方法。
SICOT J. 2018;4:45. doi: 10.1051/sicotj/2018043. Epub 2018 Oct 19.
3
Rotator Cuff Calcific Tendinitis: Ultrasound-Guided Needling and Lavage Versus Subacromial Corticosteroids: Five-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial.
肩袖钙化性肌腱炎:超声引导下的针和灌洗与肩峰下皮质类固醇注射的比较:一项随机对照试验的 5 年结果。
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Dec;45(14):3305-3314. doi: 10.1177/0363546517721686. Epub 2017 Sep 12.
4
Extracorporeal shock wave therapy, ultrasound-guided percutaneous lavage, corticosteroid injection and combined treatment for the treatment of rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy: a network meta-analysis of RCTs.体外冲击波疗法、超声引导下经皮灌洗、皮质类固醇注射及联合治疗用于治疗肩袖钙化性肌腱炎:随机对照试验的网状Meta分析
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017 Apr;27(3):381-390. doi: 10.1007/s00590-016-1839-y. Epub 2016 Aug 23.
5
CLINICAL APPLICATION OF SHOCK WAVE THERAPY IN MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS: PART I.冲击波疗法在肌肉骨骼疾病中的临床应用:第一部分
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015 Jul-Sep;29(3):533-45.
6
The Effectiveness of High-Energy Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Versus Ultrasound-Guided Needling Versus Arthroscopic Surgery in the Management of Chronic Calcific Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review.高能体外冲击波疗法与超声引导下针刺疗法及关节镜手术治疗慢性钙化性肩袖肌腱病的疗效比较:一项系统评价
Arthroscopy. 2016 Jan;32(1):165-75. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.06.049. Epub 2015 Sep 15.
7
Prevalence of calcific deposits within the rotator cuff tendons in adults with and without subacromial pain syndrome: clinical and radiologic analysis of 1219 patients.患有和未患有肩峰下疼痛综合征的成年人肩袖肌腱内钙化沉积物的患病率:1219例患者的临床和放射学分析
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Oct;24(10):1588-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.02.024. Epub 2015 Apr 11.
8
Which method is more effective in treatment of calcific tendinitis in the shoulder? Prospective randomized comparison between ultrasound-guided needling and extracorporeal shock wave therapy.哪一种方法在治疗肩部钙化性肌腱炎方面更有效?超声引导下针刺与体外冲击波治疗的前瞻性随机比较。
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Nov;23(11):1640-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.06.036. Epub 2014 Sep 12.
9
High-energy versus low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: which is superior? A meta-analysis.高能与低能体外冲击波疗法治疗肩部钙化性肌腱炎:哪种更优?一项荟萃分析。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Sep;472(9):2816-25. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3680-0. Epub 2014 May 29.
10
Calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff: a randomized controlled trial of ultrasound-guided needling and lavage versus subacromial corticosteroids.肩袖钙化性肌腱炎:超声引导下针刺灌洗与肩峰下皮质类固醇注射的随机对照研究。
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Jul;41(7):1665-73. doi: 10.1177/0363546513487066. Epub 2013 May 21.