Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

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.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help