The TOPSHOCK study: Effectiveness of radial shockwave therapy compared to focused shockwave therapy for treating patellar tendinopath - design of a randomised controlled trial

Background: Patellar tendinopathy is a chronic overuse injury of the patellar tendon that is especially prevalent in people who are involved in jumping activities. Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy is a relatively new treatment modality for tendinopathies. It seems to be a safe and promising part of the rehabilitation program for patellar tendinopathy. Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy originally used focused shockwaves. Several years ago a new kind of shockwave therapy was introduced: radial shockwave therapy. Studies that investigate the effectiveness of radial shockwave therapy as treatment for patellar tendinopathy are scarce. Therefore the aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of focussed shockwave therapy and radial shockwave therapy as treatments for patellar tendinopathy. Methods/design: The TOPSHOCK study (Tendinopathy Of Patella SHOCKwave) is a two-armed randomised controlled trial in which the effectiveness of focussed shockwave therapy and radial shockwave therapy are directly compared. Outcome assessors and patients are blinded as to which treatment is given. Patients undergo three sessions of either focused shockwave therapy or radial shockwave therapy at 1-week intervals, both in combination with eccentric decline squat training. Follow-up measurements are scheduled just before treatments 2 and 3, and 1, 4, 7 and 12 weeks after the final treatment. The main outcome measure is the Dutch VISA-P questionnaire, which asks for pain, function and sports participation in subjects with patellar tendinopathy. Secondary outcome measures are pain determined with a VAS during ADL, sports and decline squats, rating of subjective improvement and overall satisfaction with the treatment. Patients will also record their sports activities, pain during and after these activities, and concurrent medical treatment on a weekly basis in a web-based diary. Results will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion: The TOPSHOCK study is the first randomised controlled trial that directly compares the effectiveness of focused shockwave therapy and radial shockwave therapy, both in combination with eccentric decline squat training, for treating patellar tendinopathy. Trial registration: Trial registration number NTR2774

Stiffness in total knee arthroplasty

Stiffness is a relatively uncommon complication after total knee arthroplasty. It has been defined as a painful limitation in the range of movement (ROM). Its pathogenesis is still unclear even if some risk factors have been identified. Patient-related conditions may be difficult to treat. Preoperative ROM is the most important risk factor, but an association with diabetes, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, and general pathologies such as juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis has been demonstrated. Moreover, previous surgery may be an additional cause of an ROM limitation. Postoperative factors include infections, arthrofibrosis, heterotrophic ossifications, and incorrect rehabilitation protocol. Infections represent a challenging problem for the orthopaedic surgeon, and treatment may require long periods of antibiotics administration. However, it is widely accepted that an aggressive rehabilitation protocol is mandatory for a proper ROM recovery and to avoid the onset of arthrofibrosis and heterotrophic ossifications. Finally, surgery-related factors represent the most common cause of stiffness; they include errors in soft-tissue balancing, component malpositioning, and incorrect component sizing. Although closed manipulation, arthroscopic and open arthrolysis have been proposed, they may lead to unpredictable results and incomplete ROM recovery. Revision surgery must be proposed in the case of well-documented surgical errors. These operations are technically demanding and may be associated with high risk of complications; therefore they should be accurately planned and properly performed

Retro-trochanteric sciatica-like pain: current concept

The aim of this manuscript is to review the current knowledge in terms of retro-trochanteric pain syndrome, make recommendations for diagnosis and differential diagnosis and offer suggestions for treatment options. The terminology in the literature is confusing and these symptoms can be referred to as ‘greater trochanteric pain syndrome’, ‘trochanteric bursitis’ and ‘trochanteritis’, among other denominations. The authors focus on a special type of sciatica, i.e. retro-trochanteric pain radiating down to the lower extremity. The impact of different radiographic assessments is discussed. The authors recommend excluding pathology in the spine and pelvic area before following their suggested treatment algorithm for sciatica-like retro-trochanteric pain. Level of evidence II

Low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy as a treatment for greater trochanteric pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Greater trochanteric pain syndrome is often a manifestation of underlying gluteal tendinopathy. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy is effective in numerous types of tendinopathies. HYPOTHESIS: Shock wave therapy is an effective treatment for chronic greater trochanteric pain syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: Case control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with chronic greater trochanteric pain syndrome received low-energy shock wave therapy (2000 shocks; 4 bars of pressure, equal to 0.18 mJ/mm(2); total energy flux density, 360 mJ/mm(2)). Thirty-three patients with chronic greater trochanteric pain syndrome were not treated with shock wave therapy but received additional forms of nonoperative therapy (control). All shock wave therapy procedures were performed without anesthesia. Evaluation was by change in visual analog score, Harris hip score, and Roles and Maudsley score. RESULTS: Mean pretreatment visual analog scores for the control and shock wave therapy groups were 8.5 and 8.5, respectively. One, 3, and 12 months after treatment, the mean visual analog score for the control and shock wave therapy groups were 7.6 and 5.1 (P < .001), 7 and 3.7 (P < .001), and 6.3 and 2.7 (P < .001), respectively. One, 3, and 12 months after treatment, mean Harris hip scores for the control and shock wave therapy groups were 54.4 and 69.8 (P < .001), 56.9 and 74.8 (P < .001), and 57.6 and 79.9 (P < .001), respectively. At final follow-up, the number of excellent, good, fair, and poor results for the shock wave therapy and control groups were 10 and 0 (P < .001), 16 and 12 (P < .001), 4 and 13 (P < .001), and 3 and 8 (P < .001), respectively. Chi-square analysis showed the percentage of patients with excellent (1) or good (2) Roles and Maudsley scores (ie, successful results) 12 months after treatment was statistically greater in the shock wave therapy than in the control group (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Shock wave therapy is an effective treatment for greater trochanteric pain syndrome

Mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy--current options for treatment.

PURPOSE: To report on the present option for management of tendinopathy of the main body of the Achilles tendon. BACKGROUND: Tendinopathy of the main body of tendo Achillis affects athletic and sedentary patients. Mechanical loading is thought to be a major causative factor. However, the exact mechanical loading conditions which cause tendinopathy are poorly defined. Repetitive mechanical loading induces a non-inflammatory pathology, and repetitive microtrauma ultimately exceeds the healing response. The management of Achilles tendinopathy is primarily conservative. Although many non-operative options are available, few have been tested under controlled conditions. This review article specifically focuses on eccentric training, and on shock wave therapy. Surgical intervention can be successful in refractory cases. However, surgery does not usually completely eliminate symptoms and complications are not rare. CONCLUSIONS: Further studies are needed to discern the optimal non-operative and surgical management of midsubstance Achilles tendinopathy

Eccentric loading, shock-wave treatment, or a wait-and-see policy for tendinopathy of the main body of tendo Achillis: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Few randomized controlled trials compare different methods of management in chronic tendinopathy of the main body of tendo Achillis. PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of 3 management strategies-group 1, eccentric loading; group 2, repetitive low-energy shock-wave therapy (SWT); and group 3, wait and see-in patients with chronic tendinopathy of the main body of tendo Achillis. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Seventy-five patients with a chronic recalcitrant (>6 months) noninsertional Achilles tendinopathy were enrolled in a randomized controlled study. All patients had received unsuccessful management for >3 months, including at least (1) peritendinous local injections, (2) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and (3) physiotherapy. A computerized random-number generator was used to draw up an allocation schedule. Analysis was on intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: At 4 months from baseline, the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA)-A score increased in all groups, from 51 to 76 points in group 1 (eccentric loading), from 50 to 70 points in group 2 (repetitive low-energy SWT), and from 48 to 55 points in group 3 (wait and see). Pain rating decreased in all groups, from 7 to 4 points in group 1, from 7 to 4 points in group 2, and from 8 to 6 points in group 3. Fifteen of 25 patients in group 1 (60%), 13 of 25 patients in group 2 (52%), and 6 of 25 patients in Group 3 (24%) reported a Likert scale of 1 or 2 points ("completely recovered" or "much improved"). For all outcome measures, groups 1 and 2 did not differ significantly. For all outcome measures, groups 1 and 2 showed significantly better results than group 3. CONCLUSION: At 4-month follow-up, eccentric loading and low-energy SWT showed comparable results. The wait-and-see strategy was ineffective for the management of chronic recalcitrant tendinopathy of the main body of the Achilles tendon