Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Versus Local Corticosteroid Injection for Chronic Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

体外冲击波疗法与局部皮质类固醇注射治疗慢性外侧肱骨上髁炎的比较:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

阅读:1

Abstract

Chronic lateral epicondylitis (LE), normally known as tennis elbow, is often managed by conservative treatments. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and local corticosteroid injection (LCI) are among the most commonly used conservative treatments. However, the comparison between these two interventions remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of ESWT and LCI for chronic LE. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies until April 20, 2024. Meta-analyses were conducted using Manager V.5.4.1. Pooled effect sizes were expressed as the weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Compared with LCI, ESWT had inferior change in visual analogue scale (Δ VAS) (WMD, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.48; I(2) = 20%; p < 0.001), Δ grip strength (WMD, -4.01; 95% CI, -5.57 to -2.44; I(2) = 36%; p < 0.001), change in patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (Δ PRTEE) score (WMD, 8.64; 95% CI, 4.70 to 12.58; I(2) = 0%; p < 0.001) at 1-month follow-up, but superior Δ VAS (WMD, -1.15; 95% CI, -1.51 to -0.80; I(2) = 6%; p < 0.001), Δ grip strength (WMD, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.90 to 3.18; I(2) = 3%; p = 0.0005), Δ PRTEE score (WMD, -9.50; 95% CI, -14.05 to -4.95; I(2) = 58%; p < 0.001) at 3-month follow-up, and superior Δ VAS (WMD, -1.81; 95% CI, -2.52 to -1.10; I(2) = 33%; p < 0.001), Δ grip strength (WMD, 3.06; 95% CI, 0.90 to 5.21; I(2) = 0%; p = 0.005) at 6-month follow-up. The two groups had a similarly low rate of adverse events (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.05 to 8.60; I(2) = 67%; p = 0.77), all of which were mild. Both ESWT and LCI are effective and safe in treating chronic LE. Compared with LCI, ESWT showed inferior short-term (1-month) but superior long-term (3-month and 6-month) outcomes regarding pain relief and function recovery, with a similar rate of mild adverse events.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。