Skip to main content

No difference in effectiveness between focused and radial shockwave therapy for treating patellar tendinopathy: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of focused shockwave therapy (FSWT) and radial shockwave therapy (RSWT) for treating patellar tendinopathy.

Methods

Patients were randomized into two groups. One group received three sessions of FSWT, and the other group received three sessions of RSWT. Both groups also received an eccentric training programme. Follow-up measurements took place 1, 4, 7 and 14 weeks after the final shockwave treatment. The primary outcome measure was the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Patella (VISA-P) questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures were pain during ADL, sports activities and the decline squat.

Results

Forty-three subjects (57 tendons) were included in the study. Twenty-one subjects (31 tendons) received FSWT, and 22 subjects (26 tendons) received RSWT. Both groups improved significantly on the VISA-P score, but there were no differences in improvement between the FSWT group (15 points on the VISA-P) and the RSWT group (9.6 points, n.s.). This was also the case for the secondary outcome measures.

Conclusion

There were no statistically significant differences in effectiveness between FSWT and RSWT. It is therefore not possible to recommend one treatment over the other on grounds of outcome. Both groups improved significantly, although it is questionable whether this difference is clinically relevant.

Level of evidence

II.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Almekinders LC, Vellema JH, Weinhold PS (2002) Strain patterns in the patellar tendon and the implications for patellar tendinopathy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 10:2–5

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bryant D, Havey TC, Roberts R, Guyatt G (2006) How many patients? How many limbs? Analysis of patients or limbs in the orthopaedic literature: a systematic review. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88:41–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Cleveland RO, Chitnis PV, McClure SR (2007) Acoustic field of a ballistic shock wave therapy device. Ultrasound Med Biol 33:1327–1335

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Cook JL, Kiss ZS, Khan KM, Purdam CR, Webster KE (2004) Anthropometry, physical performance, and ultrasound patellar tendon abnormality in elite junior basketball players: a cross-sectional study. Br J Sports Med 38:206–209

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Crossley KM, Thancanamootoo K, Metcalf BR, Cook JL, Purdam CR, Warden SJ (2007) Clinical features of patellar tendinopathy and their implications for rehabilitation. J Orthop Res 25:1164–1175

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Furia JP, Rompe JD, Cacchio A, Del Buono A, Maffulli N (2013) A single application of low-energy radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy is effective for the management of chronic patellar tendinopathy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:346–350

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Gaida JE, Cook JL, Bass SL, Austen S, Kiss ZS (2004) Are unilateral and bilateral patellar tendinopathy distinguished by differences in anthropometry, body composition, or muscle strength in elite female basketball players? Br J Sports Med 38:581–585

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Gaida JE, Cook J (2011) Treatment options for patellar tendinopathy: critical review. Curr Sports Med Rep 10:255–270

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hoksrud A, Bahr R (2011) Ultrasound-guided sclerosing treatment in patients with patellar tendinopathy (jumper’s knee): 44-month follow-up. Am J Sports Med 39:2377–2380

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Larsson ME, Kall I, Nilsson-Helander K (2011) Treatment of patellar tendinopathy-a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(8):1632–1646

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Lian OB, Engebretsen L, Bahr R (2005) Prevalence of jumper’s knee among elite athletes from different sports—a cross-sectional study. Am J Sports Med 33:561–567

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Lohrer H, Scholl J, Arentz S (2002) Achilles tendinopathy and patellar tendinopathy. Results of radial shockwave therapy in patients with unsuccessfully treated tendinoses. Sportverletz Sportschaden 16:108–114

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lohrer H, Nauck T, Dorn-Lange NV, Schoell J, Vester JC (2010) Comparison of radial versus focused extracorporeal shock waves in plantar fasciitis using functional measures. Foot Ankle Int 31:1–9

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    McClure S, Dorfmnller C (2003) Extracorporeal shock wave therapy: theory and equipment. Clin Tech Equine Pract 2:348–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ogden JA, Toth-Kischkat A, Schultheiss R (2001) Principles of shock wave therapy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 387:8–17

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sauerland S, Lefering R, Bayer-Sandow T, Bruser P, Neugebauer EA (2003) Fingers, hands or patients? The concept of independent observations. J Hand Surg Br 28:102–105

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Schneider HT, Hummel T, Janowitz P, Ott R, Neuhaus H, Swobodnik W, Pauli E, Kobal G, Ell C (1992) Pain in extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy—a comparison of different lithotripters in volunteers. Gastroenterology 102:640–646

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    van der Worp H, van den Akker-Scheek I, van Schie H, Zwerver J (2012) ESWT for tendinopathy: technology and clinical implications. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-2009-3

  19. 19.

    van der Worp H, van Ark M, Zwerver J, van den Akker-Scheek I (2011) Risk factors for patellar tendinopathy in basketball and volleyball players: a cross-sectional study. Scand J Med Sci Sports 22:783–790

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    van der Worp H, van den Akker-Scheek I, Zwerver J (2011) Diversiteit in Extracorporele schokgolftherapie voor patellatendinopathie in Nederland: Resultaten van een survey onder behandelaars. [Diversity in ESWT for patellar tendinopathy in the Netherlands: results of a survey among clinicians.]. Sport Geneeskunde 44:28–31

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    van der Worp H, Zwerver J, van den Akker-Scheek I, Diercks RL (2011) The TOPSHOCK study: effectiveness of radial shockwave therapy compared to focused shockwave therapy for treating patellar tendinopathy. Design of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:229

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    van Leeuwen MT, Zwerver J, Akker-Scheek I (2009) Extracorporeal shockwave therapy for patellar tendinopathy: a review of the literature. Br J Sports Med 43:163–168

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Visentini PJ, Khan KM, Cook JL, Kiss ZS, Harcourt PR, Wark JD (1998) The VISA score: an index of severity of symptoms in patients with jumper’s knee (patellar tendinosis). Victorian Institute of Sport Tendon Study Group. J Sci Med Sport 1:22–28

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Visnes H, Bahr R (2007) The evolution of eccentric training as treatment for patellar tendinopathy (jumper’s knee): a critical review of exercise programmes. Br J Sports Med 41:217–223

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Zwerver J, Hartgens F, Verhagen E, van der Worp H, van den Akker-Scheek I, Diercks RL (2011) No effect of extracorporeal shockwave therapy on patellar tendinopathy in jumping athletes during the competitive season: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Sports Med 39:1191–1199

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Zwerver J, Kramer T, Akker-Scheek I (2009) Validity and reliability of the Dutch translation of the VISA-P questionnaire for patellar tendinopathy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10:102

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank GymnaUniphy Nederland B.V. for supplying the Storz Duolith SD1. We also thank Mathijs van Ark and Jolanda Boetje for their help with execution of the study, Inge Reininga for performing the randomization and Roy Stewart for his statistical advice. The study was funded by University Medical Center Groningen. The authors declare that they do not have competing interests. GymnaUniphy Nederland B.V. (Berlicum, the Netherlands) supported the TOPSHOCK study by providing the ESWT device. Neither the study nor any of the authors receive or have received any funding or financial compensation from GymnaUniphy. GymnaUniphy has not been involved in the design of the study or in the analysis of the data.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. van der Worp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van der Worp, H., Zwerver, J., Hamstra, M. et al. No difference in effectiveness between focused and radial shockwave therapy for treating patellar tendinopathy: a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22, 2026–2032 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2522-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Patellar tendinopathy
  • ESWT
  • Randomized controlled trial
  • Jumper’s knee