Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Extracorporeal shockwave therapy in the treatment of trigger finger: a randomized controlled study [with consumer summary] |
Chen Y-P, Lin C-Y, Kuo Y-J, Lee OK-S |
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2021 Nov;102(11):2083-2090 |
clinical trial |
9/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: Yes; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and to determine the ideal energy flux density of wide-focused ESWT in the treatment of trigger finger (TF). DESIGN: Double-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 60 patients (n = 60) with grade II TF according to the Quinnell classification were randomly and evenly allocated to 3 treatment groups. INTERVENTIONS: Three treatment groups included a high-energy ESWT (HS) group (energy flux density of 0.01 mJ/mm2, 5.8 bar, 1,500 impulses, once per week for 4 wk), a low-energy ESWT (LS) group (energy flux density of 0.006 mJ/mm2, 3 bar, 1,500 impulses, once per week for 4 wk), and a sham intervention group (sham group). All participants received 6 months of follow-up after intervention when only painkillers were allowed as concomitant treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical outcomes were followed at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months after intervention, including pain score, frequency of triggering, severity of triggering, functional impact of triggering, and quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (qDASH). RESULTS: All groups showed significant improvements from baseline in all clinical parameters, except for functional impact of triggering, 6 months after the interventions. However, the HS group demonstrated a higher magnitude of improvement than the LS and sham groups. In addition, the HS group reported significantly lower pain (p = 0.01) and lower qDASH (p = 0.008) than the sham group 6 months after the interventions. No adverse effects were reported in the HS and LS groups within 6 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Wide-focused ESWT is a safe and effective but dose-dependent alternative facilitating pain relief and functional improvement in the treatment of grade II TF according to the Quinnell classification.
|