Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

High-energy Versus Low-energy Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Calcifying Tendinitis of the Shoulder: Which is Superior? A Meta-analysis

  • Survey
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Abstract

Background

There are several treatment options for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder. The next step treatment after conservative treatment fails is still a matter of dispute. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been shown to be a good alternative to surgery, but the best treatment intensity remains unknown. High-energy ESWT is much more painful, more expensive, and usually is done in an inpatient setting, whereas low-energy ESWT can be performed in an outpatient setting by a physical therapist.

Questions/purposes

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials was performed to answer two clear research questions: (1) Is there a greater increase in the Constant-Murley score in patients treated with high-energy ESWT compared with those treated with low-energy ESWT by 3 months and by 6 months? (2) Is there a greater chance of complete resorption of the calcifications in patients treated with high-energy ESWT compared with those treated with low-energy ESWT by 3 months and by 6 months?

Methods

Five relevant electronic online databases, Medline (through PubMed), EMBASE (through OVID), Cinahl (through EBSCO), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were systematically searched. We also crosschecked the reference lists of articles and reviews for possible relevant studies. Eligible for inclusion were all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared high-energy ESWT (> 0.28 mJ/mm2) with low-energy ESWT (< 0.08 mJ/mm2). One author examined titles and abstracts of each identified study to assess study eligibility. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and study quality. The primary outcome measure, the Constant-Murley score, was assessed by comparing mean functional outcome scores between the groups. Secondary outcomes were assessed using odds ratios, when appropriate data were pooled. Based on this process, five RCTs (359 participants) were included.

Results

All five RCTs showed greater improvement in functional outcome (Constant-Murley score) in patients treated with high-energy ESWT compared with patients treated with low-energy ESWT at 3 and 6 months. The 3-month mean difference was 9.88 (95% CI, 9.04–10.72, p < 0.001; 6-month data could not be pooled). Furthermore, high-energy ESWT more often resulted in complete resorption of the deposits at 3 months. The corresponding odds ratio was 3.40 (95% CI, 1.35–8.58) and p = 0.009 (6-month data could not be pooled).

Conclusion

When shock wave therapy is chosen, high-energy shock wave therapy is more likely to result in improved Constant-Murley score and resorption of the deposits compared with low-energy therapy.

Level of Evidence

Level I, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Albert JD, Meadeb J, Guggenbuhl P, Marin F, Benkalfate T, Thomazeau H, Chalès G. High-energy extracorporeal shock-wave therapy for calcifying tendinitis of the rotator cuff: a randomised trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:335–341.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Conboy VB, Morris RW, Kiss J, Carr AJ. An evaluation of the Constant-Murley shoulder assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:229–232.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, Sojbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P. A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:355–361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;214:160–164.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Diehl P, Gerdesmeyer L, Gollwitzer H, Sauer W, Tischer T. [Calcific tendinitis of the shoulder] [in German]. Orthopade. 2011;40:733–746.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Durst HB, Blatter G, Kuster MS. Osteonecrosis of the humeral head after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:744–746.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M; Editorial Board, Cochrane Back Review Group. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:1929–1941.

  8. Gartner J, Heyer A. [Calcific tendinitis of the shoulder] [in German]. Orthopade. 1995;24:284–302.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gerdesmeyer L, Wagenpfeil S, Haake M, Maier M, Loew M, Wortler K, Lampe R, Seil R, Handle G, Gassel S, Rompe JD. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the treatment of chronic calcifying tendonitis of the rotator cuff: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290:2573–2580.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gosens T, Hofstee DJ. Calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: advances in imaging and management. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2009;11:129–134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Higgins JP, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed January 4, 2014.

  12. Hofstee DJ, Gosens T, Bonnet M, De Waal Malefijt J. Calcifications in the cuff: take it or leave it? Br J Sports Med. 2007;41:832–835.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Huisstede BM, Gebremariam L, van der Sande R, Hay EM, Koes BW. Evidence for effectiveness of Extracorporal Shock-Wave Therapy (ESWT) to treat calcific and non-calcific rotator cuff tendinosis: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2011;16:419–433.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hurt G, Baker CL Jr. Calcific tendinitis of the shoulder. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;34:567–575.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ioppolo F, Tattoli M, Di Sante L, Venditto T, Tognolo L, Delicata M, Rizzo G, Di Tanna G, Santilli V. Clinical improvement and resorption of calcifications in calcific tendinitis of the shoulder after shock wave therapy at 6 months’ follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:1699–1706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kukkonen J, Kauko T, Vahlberg T, Joukainen A, Aärimaa V. Investigating minimal clinically important difference for Constant score in patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22:1650–1655.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Loew M, Daecke W, Kusnierczak D, Rahmanzadeh M, Ewerbeck V. Shock-wave therapy is effective for chronic calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81:863–867.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Loew M, Jurgowski W, Mau HC, Thomsen M. Treatment of calcifying tendinitis of rotator cuff by extracorporeal shock waves: a preliminary report. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4:101–106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. QUOROM Group. Br J Surg. 2000;87:1448–1454.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mouzopoulos G, Stamatakos M, Mouzopoulos D, Tzurbakis M. Extracorporeal shock wave treatment for shoulder calcific tendonitis: a systematic review. Skeletal Radiol. 2007;36:803–811.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pleiner J, Crevenna R, Langenberger H, Keilani M, Nuhr M, Kainberger F, Wolzt M, Wiesinger G, Quittan M. Extracorporeal shockwave treatment is effective in calcific tendonitis of the shoulder: a randomized controlled trial. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2004;116:536–541.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rompe JD, Burger R, Hopf C, Eysel P. Shoulder function after extracorporal shock wave therapy for calcific tendinitis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7:505–509.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Speed CA, Hazleman BL. Calcific tendinitis of the shoulder. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1582–1584.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vavken P, Holinka J, Rompe JD, Dorotka R. Focused extracorporeal shock wave therapy in calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: a meta-analysis. Sports Health. 2009;1:137–144.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Viecuri Medical Centre, Tegelseweg 210, 5912 BL, Venlo, The Netherlands

    F. U. Verstraelen MD, N. J. H. M. in den Kleef MD, L. Jansen PhD & J. W. Morrenhof PhD, MD

Authors
  1. F. U. Verstraelen MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. J. H. M. in den Kleef MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Jansen PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. W. Morrenhof PhD, MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. U. Verstraelen MD.

Additional information

Each author certifies that he or she, or a member of his or her immediate family, has no funding or commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 95 kb)

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verstraelen, F.U., in den Kleef, N.J.H.M., Jansen, L. et al. High-energy Versus Low-energy Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Calcifying Tendinitis of the Shoulder: Which is Superior? A Meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472, 2816–2825 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3680-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3680-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation