BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2020 / Article
Special Issue

Integrated Role of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Rehabilitation of Individuals with Musculoskeletal Disorders

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 1907821 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1907821

Lu Chen, Ling Ye, Hui Liu, Pingliang Yang, Bangxiang Yang, "Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis", BioMed Research International, vol. 2020, Article ID 1907821, 15 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1907821

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Guest Editor: Adérito Seixas
Received13 Jan 2020
Accepted22 Feb 2020
Published18 Mar 2020

Abstract

Background. Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal disease. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy had shown an effect on osteoarthritis in both some animal experiments and clinical studies, but there was no systematic review to confirm the value of shockwave therapy in the treatment of all types of osteoarthritis and compare it with other traditional therapies (especially traditional Chinese medicine). Method. PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG database, and VIP database were searched up to December 10, 2019, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing shockwave therapy and other treatments for osteoarthritis. Visual analogue scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were extracted and analyzed by RevMan and STATA software as outcomes of pain reduction and functional improvement. Adverse reactions were recorded to evaluate the safety of shockwave therapy. Results. Shockwave therapy had significant improvement in both pain reduction and functional improvement compared with placebo, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, medication, and ultrasound (). In functional improvement, shockwave therapy showed statistical improvement compared with kinesiotherapy and moxibustion () but not with acupotomy surgery (). A significant difference between shockwave therapy and platelet-rich plasma was observed in pain reduction () but not in functional improvement (). Meanwhile, a statistical difference was found between shockwave therapy and fumigation in functional improvement () but not in pain reduction (). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between shockwave therapy and manipulation in both pain reduction () and functional improvement (). No serious adverse reaction occurred in all of studies. Conclusions. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy could be recommended in the treatment of osteoarthritis as a noninvasive therapy with safety and effectiveness, but the grade of recommendations needs to be discussed in a further study.

1. Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common musculoskeletal disease, ranking as the 11th highest contributor to global disability and 38th highest in the disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study [1, 2]. About 18% of women and 10% of men over 60 years of age suffered from OA and had higher mortality rates than their peers [3, 4]. In recent studies, the pathological processes of OA involve several local and systemic factors such as cytokines, chemokines, inflammatory mediators, matrix degradation, cell-derived, and/or matrix-derived products, which may cause damages to the synovium, cartilage, subchondral bone, periarticular muscles, ligaments, and other joint structures and finally lead to pain, stiffness, and disability [5, 6]. At present, the medical management of OA includes surgical therapies and nonsurgical therapies such as intra-articular injection, medication, and physical therapy. However, it was still difficult to reverse the destruction of joint structures [5]. Therefore, it is of great clinic significance to find an ideal method to relieve pain, improve function, and delay the disease progression.

As a new technique, extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) uses a single-impulse transient acoustic wave induced by pneumatic, electrohydraulic, electromagnetic, or piezoelectric generators which focuse on the area needed to be treated [7]. ESWT has shown an effect on articular cartilage and subchondral bone development, neovascularization, tissue regeneration, and inflammatory response in some animal experiments [810]. ESWT also succeeds in the treatment of several musculoskeletal diseases, including tennis elbow syndrome, plantar fasciitis, tendon disease, and fracture nonunions, in some clinical studies [1114]. More and more attention has been paid to the application of ESWT on OA because of its noninvasive nature, low rate of complications, and low cost compared with other surgical or conservative treatments in recent studies [15, 16]. Despite some systematic reviews focusing on the effect of ESWT on knee OA [1719], there was no systematic review to confirm the value of EWST in the treatment of all types of OA (including knee OA and carpometacarpal joint OA) and compare ESWT with other traditional therapies (especially traditional Chinese medicine). Thus, this meta-analysis was performed, and the latest randomized controlled trials were included, which would contribute to the treatment of OA.

2. Method

2.1. Search Strategy

The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019120534), and all searched results were evaluated according to the PRISMA statement. PubMed, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science (WOS), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WANFANG database, and VIP database were searched up to December 10, 2019, to identify the potential studies exploring the effect of ESWT for the treatment of OA. The searching strategy used was as follows: (((extracorporeal shock wave therapy [Title/Abstract]) OR ESWT[Title/Abstract])) AND ((osteoarthritis[Title/Abstract]) OR OA[Title/Abstract]) Filters: Publication date to 2019/12/10. The publication language was limited to English and Chinese.

2.2. Study Selection

The inclusion criteria were the following: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the effect of ESWT and other treatments (including placebo) for all types of OA; (2) full text available and the outcome of experiments including mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and number (); (3) patients aged 45 years or more and diagnosed with OA according to any clinical criteria; and (4) ESWT that had never been performed to the enrolled patients before.

The exclusion criteria were the following: (1) meta-analyses, reviews, letters, editorials, expert opinions, case reports, and nonrandomized control trials; (2) animal experiments; (3) patients with coagulopathy, pregnancy, cancer, history of fractures, cardiac pacemaker use, and neurologic conditions; and (4) including only the latest information if data were duplicated or overlapped.

2.3. Screening and Data Collection

Two researchers independently assessed the eligibility of the studies, and the disagreements were resolved by a third verdict. Titles and abstracts were screened to identify the related studies, and then full texts were assessed carefully. Moreover, the references cited in the selected articles were explored to identify the potentially relevant studies. The scores of visual analogue scale (VAS) were extracted as primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the scores of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), which represented the functional change. If the scores were recorded in different follow-up times, we selected the time point at 3 months or available data to be nearest to 3 months to predict the efficacy.

2.4. Quality Assessment

The quality of included studies was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias which was recommended for systematic reviews of interventions in Cochrane Handbook version 5.1.0 [20]. We evaluated 7 domains of bias including selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attribution bias, reporting bias, and other sources of bias. The judgements were expressed as “high risk,” “low risk,” or “unclear risk,” and the quality assessment figure was generated by RevMan version 5.3.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

Meta-analysis Review Manager software (RevMan version 5.3; The Cochrane Collaboration 2014) and STATA (version 12.0; Stata Corporation) were used for data analysis. The analysis was performed in two respects including pain reduction and functional improvement. The heterogeneity was evaluated by Higgins I2 statistic, was defined as significant heterogeneity among studies, and the random effects model was applied for the pooled effect estimates. Otherwise, the fixed effects model was used. At the same time, subgroup analysis was used for exploring sources of heterogeneity and reassessing the results. Sensitivity analyses were performed by removing an individual study from the meta-analysis each time. If more than 10 studies were included in each meta-analysis, the possibility of publication bias would be evaluated by Egger’s test and was considered statistically significant; then the fill method and nonparametric trim were applied to correct the effect size. The results were expressed as the standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for continuous outcome data.

3. Result

3.1. Search Results

As shown in Figure 1, the initial search yielded 549 articles and 173 records were screened after removing duplicates. The title and abstract of potentially relevant studies were read carefully, and 118 records were excluded. Then 55 full-text articles were assessed, and 23 articles were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Finally, 32 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis [2152]. Characteristics of these studies are shown in Table 1. All of the articles were published between 2013 and 2019 in English or Chinese. The sample size ranged from 18 to 160. All experimental groups received ESWT, while control groups received different treatments including placebo [22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 34, 48, 49, 51, 52], medication [31, 32, 43, 44, 50], intra-articular injections [21, 26, 27, 29, 35, 36, 39, 40], traditional Chinese medicine [38, 41, 42, 45, 46], ultrasound [22, 24, 47], surgery [33], and kinesiotherapy (KIN) [37].


AuthorPublication yearCountryLanguageSample sizeControl groupExperimental groupOutcome measuresFollow-up timeType of OAType of ESWT

Ediz2018TurkeyEnglish73PlaceboESWT 2 times/week
Total of 5 weeks
VAS, WOMAC6 MKneeFocused ESWT
Ioppolo2018RomeEnglish58HA (3 injections of 0.5 cm3 HA)
1 time/week
Total of 3 weeks
ESWT 1 time/week
Total of 3 weeks
VAS3 MCarpometacarpal jointFocused ESWT
Lee2017KoreaEnglish61HA (1 injection of 2 mL of HA) 1 time/week
Total of 3 weeks
ESWT 1 time/week
Total of 3 weeks
VAS, WOMAC3 MKneeFocused ESWT
Lizis2017PolandEnglish40KIN 1 time/week
Total of 3 weeks
ESWT 1 time/week
Total of 5 weeks
WOMAC5 WKneeUnmentioned
Zhao2013ChinaEnglish70PlaceboESWT 1 time/week
Total of 4 weeks
VAS, WOMAC3 MKneeRadial ESWT
Liu Y2016ChinaChinese86PlaceboESWT 1 time/week
Total of 8 weeks
VAS, WOMAC3 MKneeRadial ESWT
Liu MY2017ChinaChinese158Medication (celecoxib) oral 200 mg qd
4 weeks
ESWT
1 time/week
Total of 4 weeks
VAS, WOMAC3 MKneeUnmentioned
Zhang2017ChinaChinese106Ultrasound 5 times/week
Total of 4 weeks
ESWT 1 time/5 days
Total of 5 times
VAS1 MKneeRadial ESWT
Zheng2016ChinaChinese48Medication (celecoxib) oral 200 mg qd
4 weeks
ESWT 1 time/week
Total of 4 weeks
VAS, WOMAC1 MKneeRadial ESWT
Liu WT2017ChinaChinese58Acupotomy surgeryESWT
1 time/5 days
Total of 6 times
WOMAC5 WKneeUnmentioned
ZhaoAQ2016ChinaChinese60PlaceboESWT
1 time/week
Total of 8 weeks
VAS, WOMAC2 MKneeUnmentioned
Wu2014ChinaChinese53Medication (toricoxi) oral 60 mg qd
4 weeks
ESWT
1 time/week
Total of 4 weeks
VAS6 WKneeRadial ESWT
Chen2014ChinaEnglish120Placebo
Ultrasound 3 times/week
Total of 8 weeks
ESWT 1 time/week
Total of 6 weeks
VAS2 MKneeFocused ESWT
Lee JH2017KoreaEnglish20PlaceboESWT 3 times/week
Total of 4 weeks
VAS
WOMAC
1 MKneeFocused ESWT
Zhong2019ChinaEnglish63PlaceboESWT 1 time/week
Total of 4 weeks
VAS
WOMAC
3 MKneeRadial ESWT
Wang2016ChinaChinese78Massage manipulation 1 time/2 days
10 weeks
ESWT 1 time/5 days
Total of 5 weeks
WOMAC3 MKneeRadial ESWT
Zhong2018ChinaChinese63PlaceboESWT 1 time/week
Total of 4 weeks
VAS
WOMAC
5 WKneeRadial ESWT
Xie2019ChinaChinese60Fumigation bid 3 weeksESWT 1 time/week
Total of 4 weeks
VAS3 MKneeRadial ESWT
Su2018ChinaChinese160HA (1 injection of 2 mL of HA) 1 time/week
Total of 5 weeks
ESWT 1 time/week
Total of 5 weeks
VAS
WOMAC
5 WKneeRadial ESWT
Su2019ChinaChinese120PRP (1 injection of 4 mL of PRP) 1 time/week
Total of 5 weeks
ESWT 1 time/week
Total of 5 weeks
VAS
WOMAC
5 WKneeRadial ESWT
Qi2015ChinaChinese60Acupoint moxibustion qd
4 weeks
ESWT 1 time/week
Total of 4 weeks
WOMAC6 MKneeFocused ESWT
Yang2017ChinaChinese86Fumigation qd
16 days
ESWT 1 time/5 days
Total of 4 weeks
WOMACAfter treatmentKneeRadial ESWT
Liu ZC2019ChinaChinese77HA (1 injection of 2.5 mL of HA) 1 time/week
Total of 5 weeks
ESWT 1 time/week
Total of 5 weeks
VAS
WOMAC
5 WKneeRadial ESWT
Wu TY2018ChinaChinese100Medication (celecoxib) oral 200 mg qd
4 weeks
ESWT
1 time/week
Total of 4 weeks
VAS
WOMAC
After treatmentKneeRadial ESWT
Cai2018ChinaChinese90HA (1 injection of z.5 mL of HA)
1 time/week
Total of 5 weeks
ESWT 1 time/week
Total of 5 weeks
VAS
WOMAC
3 MKneeRadial ESWT
Wei2018ChinaChinese40Massage manipulation 3 times/week
Total of 4 weeks
ESWT 1 time/week
Total of 4 weeks
VAS
WOMAC
6 WKneeRadial ESWT
Cho2016KoreaEnglish18PlaceboESWT 1 time/week
Total of 3 weeks
VAS1 WKneeFocused ESWT
Liu YX2018ChinaChinese72HA (1 injection of 20 mg of HA)
1 time/week
Total of 2 months
ESWT 2 times/week
Total of 2 months
VAS
WOMAC
2 MKneeUnmentioned
Liu BZ2019ChinaChinese63PlaceboESWT 1 time/week
Total of 4 weeks
VAS
WOMAC
3 MKneeRadial ESWT
Elerian2016EgyptEnglish60Placebo corticosteroid injection 1 time/month
Total of 2 months
ESWT
1 time/week
Total of 3 weeks
VAS
WOMAC
2 MKneeRadial ESWT
Liu WF2019ChinaChinese66Medication (celecoxib) oral 200 mg qd
4 weeks
ESWT 1 time/week
Total of 4 weeks
VASAfter treatmentKneeRadial ESWT
Dou2016ChinaChinese121UltrasoundESWTWOMAC1 MKneeFocused ESWT
1 time/2 days for first two intervals
1 time/3 days for 2nd to 6th intervals
1 time/4 days for 6th to 8th intervals

Abbreviations: RCT: randomized controlled trial; ESWT: extracorporeal shockwave therapy; HA: hyaluronic acid intra-articular injections; PRP: platelet-rich plasma; KIN: kinesiotherapy; VAS: visual analogue scale; WOMAC: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; W: weeks; M: months; qd: once a day; bid: twice a day; OA: osteoarthritis.
3.2. ESWT vs. Placebo

A statistically significant difference between ESWT group and placebo group was found in pain reduction (, 95% CI: -1.77 to -1.10, ) and functional improvement (, 95% CI: -2.47 to -1.20, ). As shown in Figure 2, high heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pain reduction (). After removing a study [25] from the meta-analysis, the heterogeneity decreased to 0%. The same phenomenon occurred in the analysis of functional improvement; the heterogeneity decreased from 89% to 30% after removing two studies [25, 26] from the meta-analysis, which suggested these two studies might be the sources of heterogeneity. The pooled effect did not change after removing these studies (), which indicated the result was robust.

3.3. ESWT vs. Intra-Articular Injections

As shown in Figure 3, there was a statistical difference between the ESWT group and hyaluronic acid intra-articular injection (HA) group in pain reduction (, 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.01, ) and functional improvements (, 95% CI: -1.24 to -0.04, ). The heterogeneity decreased after subgroup analysis, which suggested that the language and dose of HA might be potential sources of heterogeneity.

A statistically significant difference between the ESWT group and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) intra-articular injection group was observed in pain reduction (, 95% CI: -0.76 to -0.03, ). However, there was no statistically significant difference in functional improvement (, 95% CI: -0.38 to 0.33, ).

There was a statistically significant difference between the ESWT group and corticosteroid intra-articular injection group in pain reduction (, 95% CI: -2.41 to -0.95, ) and functional improvements (, 95% CI: -9.78 to -5.95, ).

3.4. ESWT vs. Medication

There was a statistically significant difference between the ESWT group and medication group in the pain reduction (, 95% CI: -2.38 to -0.97, ) and functional improvement (, 95% CI: -1.33 to -0.85, ). High heterogeneity was found in pain reduction (). In functional improvement, no heterogeneity was observed () (Figure 4).

3.5. ESWT vs. Ultrasound

As shown in Figure 5, a statistically significant difference was observed between the ESWT group and ultrasound group in pain reduction (, 95% CI: -0.92 to -0.37, ) and functional improvement (, 95% CI: -1.80 to -1.17, ). No heterogeneity was observed in this meta-analysis ().

3.6. ESWT vs. Surgery

There was no statistically significant difference between the ESWT group and acupotomy surgery group in functional improvement (, 95% CI: -0.21 to 0.83, ). (Figure 6)

3.7. ESWT vs. KIN

In Figure 7, a statistically significant difference was observed between the ESWT group and kinesiotherapy (KIN) group in functional improvement (, 95% CI: -2.90 to -1.32, ).

3.8. ESWT vs. Traditional Chinese Medicine

As shown in Figure 8, there was no statistically significant difference between the ESWT group and manipulation group in pain reduction (, 95% CI: -0.23 to 1.03, ) and functional improvement (, 95% CI: -1.71 to 0.76, ). A statistically significant difference was found in comparison between the ESWT group and fumigation group in functional improvement (, 95% CI: -1.74 to -0.81, ) but not in pain reduction (, 95% CI: -0.80 to 0.22, ). There was a statistically significant difference between the ESWT group and acupoint moxibustion group in functional improvement (, 95% CI: -1.12 to -0.09, ).

3.9. Adverse Event

Only temporary pain, minor bruising, or transient soft tissue swelling was observed in nine studies [25, 30, 34, 42, 44, 47, 5052]. No adverse events were observed during the treatment in other six studies [27, 29, 3638, 46], and the remaining studies did not mention it.

3.10. Sensitivity Analysis

In meta-analysis comparing ESWT with placebo, a single study was excluded each time to evaluate the impact of the individual data on the whole result. The results showed that the pooled effect was robust and no significant deviation from the overall results was detected in our study (Figure 9).

3.11. Quality Assessment and Publication Bias

In quality assessment (Figure 10), 19 studies were considered to be high risk in blinding of participants and personnel because the therapeutic properties make it hard to apply blinding. 155 of 224 domains (69.2%) were determined at low risk, and 50 of 224 domains (22.3%) were determined at unclear risk. There was no publication bias in this meta-analysis (pain reduction—Begg’s test: , Egger’s test: ; functional improvement—Begg’s test: , Egger’s test: ).

4. Discussion

This meta-analysis included 32 studies involving 2408 patients to explore the efficacy and safety of ESWT for the treatment of OA. In this study, the ESWT group showed a statistically significant difference compared with the placebo, corticosteroid, HA, medication, and ultrasound group in both pain reduction and functional improvement, presenting that ESWT might be a successful alternative treatment when above treatments are unavailable. In functional improvement, ESWT showed statistical improvement compared with kinesiotherapy and moxibustion but no statistical difference compared with acupotomy surgery. A significant difference between ESWT and PRP was observed in pain reduction but not in functional improvement. Meanwhile, a statistical difference was found between ESWT and fumigation in functional improvement but not in pain reduction. Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between ESWT and manipulation in both pain reduction and functional improvement. No serious adverse reaction occurred in all of studies.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common cause leading to musculoskeletal pain [53]. It is considered that the pathological features of OA include articular cartilage destruction, subchondral bone change, osteophyte formation remolding, ligamentous laxity, periarticular muscle weakness, and synovial inflammation, which could result in chronic pain, physical limitation, and joint stiffness [54, 55].

Traditional treatments of OA included nonsurgical therapies and surgical therapies. In the 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International guidelines for the management of knee OA, nonsurgical therapies included intra-articular corticosteroids, biomechanical interventions, exercise, education and self-management, weight management, and strength training [56]. Traditional surgical options included joint sparing procedures such as arthroscopic surgery or joint replacing procedures [57]. For treatment, nonsurgical therapy might have limited benefit and could be associated with serious adverse events such as bleeding or gastrointestinal ulcers caused by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and infection caused by intra-articular injection [58]. As for surgery, it might be inappropriate for aged patients with limiting comorbidities. In such conditions, an effective and safe treatment was needed for patients with OA.

ESWT has been increasingly used in clinical practice over the past few years and shows significant efficacy in some clinical studies [16, 5961]. It is suggested that ESWT can generate radial or focused pressure waves which bring energy and propagate through tissue [62]. This physical force could stimulate biological effects in a treated area, and the biochemical mechanism of ESWT in OA might be associated with neovascularization, osteogenesis, and chondrogenesis [6365]. In recent studies, ESWT might lead to upregulation of angiogenic growth factors including endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and vessel endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which benefit to neovascularization [66]. ESWT was also found connected with osteogenic transcription factors including VEGF-A and hypoxia inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α), affecting growth of osteoblasts [67]. Meanwhile, ESWT might elevate levels of nitric oxide (NO), bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2), protein kinase B (PKB), and transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-β1), which facilitate differentiation and proliferation of osteoblasts [6871]. Also, it was suggested that ESWT could enhance the expression of Pdia-3, a key point of 1α,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (1α,25(OH)2D3) signaling pathway [72]. This signaling pathway is essential in gene transcription and calcium homeostasis, which was considered beneficial for osteogenesis [73]. Besides, ESWT was revealed to have a dose-dependent effect on the metabolism of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), which potentially improve bone regeneration and chondrogenesis [74]. However, the exact mechanism of ESWT is still unknown, and further studies are required for better clinical utilization.

This study also had some limitations. First, we only searched studies in English and Chinese; thus, some potential relative studies in other languages might have been missed. Second, unreported negative results and gray literature could result in publication bias. Third, very few studies compared ESWT with surgery, PRP, and corticosteroid intra-articular injections, traditional Chinese medicine, or kinesiotherapy; thus, the subgroup analysis and sensibility analysis could not be performed, and the outcome might be misleading. Besides, in this meta-analysis, focused ESWT was performed in 8 studies in the experiment group and radial ESWT was administered in 19 studies, while the type of ESWT was unmentioned in the other 5 studies. As a result, it was difficult to perform subgroup analysis according to the different type of ESWT and analyze whether there was a difference between the focused ESWT and radial ESWT in the treatment of OA. Further studies could be carried out to improve this issue.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, ESWT showed a significant effect in the treatment of OA in pain reduction or/and functional improvement compared with placebo, corticosteroid, HA, medication, ultrasound, moxibustion, fumigation, PRP, and kinesiotherapy. However, ESWT failed to show a statistically significant difference compared with manipulation and surgery. As a result, ESWT could be recommended in the treatment of OA as a noninvasive therapy with safety and effectiveness but the grade of recommendations needs to be discussed in a further study.

Disclosure

The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. An earlier version of this work has been presented in 22th ISMST International Congress.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Authors’ Contributions

Ye L designed the study with contributions from Chen L. Yang PL and Yang BX screened and collected the data. Liu H carried out the quality assessment. Chen L analyzed the data and wrote the paper with the help from Ye L and Yang PL.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grant 2019HXFH069 from 1.3.5 Project for Disciplines of Excellence–Clinical Research Incubation Project, West China Hospital, Sichuan University. The authors thank the authors of the eligible studies for providing the data.

References

  1. S. Glyn-Jones, A. J. Palmer, R. Agricola et al., “Osteoarthritis,” Lancet, vol. 386, no. 9991, pp. 376–387, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. M. Cross, E. Smith, D. Hoy et al., “The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 1323–1330, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. D. Pereira, E. Ramos, and J. Branco, “Osteoarthritis,” Acta Médica Portuguesa, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 99–106, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. A. M. Briggs, M. J. Cross, D. G. Hoy et al., “Musculoskeletal health conditions represent a global threat to healthy aging: a report for the 2015 World Health Organization world report on ageing and health,” Gerontologist, vol. 56, Supplement 2, pp. S243–S255, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. J. N. Katz, “Tanezumab for painful osteoarthritis,” JAMA, vol. 322, no. 1, pp. 30–32, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. J. Martel-Pelletier, A. J. Barr, F. M. Cicuttini et al., “Osteoarthritis,” Nature Reviews Disease Primers, vol. 2, no. 1, article 16072, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. Q. Ji, P. Wang, and C. He, “Extracorporeal shockwave therapy as a novel and potential treatment for degenerative cartilage and bone disease: osteoarthritis. A qualitative analysis of the literature,” Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, vol. 121, no. 3, pp. 255–265, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. C. J. Wang, “Extracorporeal shockwave therapy in musculoskeletal disorders,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 11, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. J. H. Cheng, C. J. Wang, S. H. Su, C. Y. Huang, and S. L. Hsu, “Next-generation sequencing identifies articular cartilage and subchondral bone miRNAs after ESWT on early osteoarthritis knee,” Oncotarget, vol. 7, no. 51, pp. 84398–84407, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. N. Ochiai, S. Ohtori, T. Sasho et al., “Extracorporeal shock wave therapy improves motor dysfunction and pain originating from knee osteoarthritis in rats,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1093–1096, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. A. Kubot, A. Grzegorzewski, M. Synder, W. Szymczak, and P. Kozłowski, “Radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy and ultrasound therapy in the treatment of tennis elbow syndrome,” Ortopedia Traumatologia Rehabilitacja, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 415–426, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. W. Schaden, R. Mittermayr, N. Haffner, D. Smolen, L. Gerdesmeyer, and C. J. Wang, “Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) - First choice treatment of fracture non-unions?” International Journal of Surgery, vol. 24, no. Part B, pp. 179–183, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. J. Lou, S. Wang, S. Liu, and G. Xing, “Effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy without local anesthesia in patients with recalcitrant plantar fasciitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 96, no. 8, pp. 529–534, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. C. Carulli, F. Tonelli, M. Innocenti, B. Gambardella, F. Muncibì, and M. Innocenti, “Effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy in three major tendon diseases,” Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 15–20, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. W. Y. Chou, J. H. Cheng, C. J. Wang, S. L. Hsu, J. H. Chen, and C. Y. Huang, “Shockwave targeting on subchondral bone is more suitable than articular cartilage for knee osteoarthritis,” International Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 156–166, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. S. Kang, F. Gao, J. Han et al., “Extracorporeal shock wave treatment can normalize painful bone marrow edema in knee osteoarthritis: a comparative historical cohort study,” Medicine, vol. 97, no. 5, article e9796, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. Y. C. Wang, H. T. Huang, P. J. Huang, Z. M. Liu, and C. L. Shih, “Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Pain Medicine, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. T. Li, J. Ma, T. Zhao, F. Gao, and W. Sun, “Application and efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave treatment for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 2843–2850, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. C. D. Liao, J. Y. Tsauo, T. H. Liou, H. C. Chen, and S. W. Huang, “Clinical efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials,” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1419–1430, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. J. J. Deeks, J. Higgins, D. G. Altman, and S. Green, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011], The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011, http://www.handbook.cochrane.org/.
  21. J. X. Cai, The effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for knee osteoarthritis, Fujian Medical University, 2018.
  22. T. W. Chen, C. W. Lin, C. L. Lee et al., “The efficacy of shock wave therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis and popliteal cyamella,” The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 362–370, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. S. J. Cho, J. R. Yang, H. S. Yang, and H. E. Yang, “Effects of extracorporeal shockwave therapy in chronic stroke patients with knee osteoarthritis: a pilot study,” Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 862–870, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. Y. X. Dou, J. Yuan, and J. Y. Zhao, “Short-term effect analysis of extracorporeal shock wave on knee osteoarthritis,” Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 917–919, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  25. L. Ediz and M. Ozgokce, “Effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy to treat primary medial knee osteoarthritis with and without bone marrow edema in elderly patients,” Turkish Journal of Geriatrics-Turk Geriatri Dergisi, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 394–401, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  26. A. E. Elerian, T. M. A. Ewidea, and N. Ali, “Effect of shock wave Therapyversus corticosteroid injection in management of knee osteoarthritis,” International Journal of Physiotherapy, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 246–251, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. F. Ioppolo, F. Saracino, R. S. Rizzo et al., “Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave therapy and intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections in the treatment of first carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis,” Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 92–100, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. J. H. Lee, S. Lee, S. Choi, Y. H. Choi, and K. Lee, “The effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on the pain and function of patients with degenerative knee arthritis,” Journal of Physical Therapy Science, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 536–538, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. J.-K. Lee, B.-Y. Lee, W.-Y. Shin, M. J. An, K. I. Jung, and S. R. Yoon, “Effect of extracorporeal shockwave therapy versus intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis,” Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine-Arm, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 828–835, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. B. Z. Liu, Z. Y. Zhong, G. H. Liu et al., “The effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on the lower limb function and articular cartilage of pa-tients with knee osteoarthritis,” Chinese Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 494–498, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  31. M. Y. Liu, H. Li, Y. Q. Zhang et al., “Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in elderly patients with knee osteoarthritis and its influence on inflammatory factors,” Hainan Medical Journal (Hai Nan Yi Xue), vol. 28, no. 24, pp. 4015–4017, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  32. W. F. Liu, “Effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on early to mid-term knee osteoarthritis,” China Medical Device Information, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 61-62, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  33. W. T. Liu, K. L. Xue, M. Tian, and F. Zhang, “Comparative study of pneumatic lithotripsy extracorporeal shock wave and acupotomelysis in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis,” The Journal of Cervicodynia and Lumbodynia, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 64–67, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  34. Y. Liu, Efficacy of shockwave therapy in postmenopausal women with early metaphase knee osteoarthritis, Hebei Medical University, 2016.
  35. Y. X. Liu, H. L. Zhou, L. L. Xu, and T. T. Li, “Effect of extracorporeal shockwave combined with rehabilitation measures on Coll 2⁃1 and COMP level in patients with early and middle stage knee osteoarthritis,” Orthopaedics, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 302–305, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  36. Z. C. Liu, J. Song, and Q. L. Zhang, “Extracorporeal shock wave therapy versus intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate for knee osteoarthritis,” Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, vol. 23, no. 15, pp. 2297–2302, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  37. P. Lizis, W. Kobza, and G. Manko, “Extracorporeal shockwave therapy vs. kinesiotherapy for osteoarthritis of the knee: a pilot randomized controlled trial,” Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1121–1128, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. S. Qi, X. H. Li, X. Q. Wu, and X. B. Lu, “The effect of extracorporeal shock wave combined with thermal moxibustion on knee osteoarthritis,” Chinese Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 120–122, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  39. W. Z. Su, Y. Lin, G. Wang et al., “Prospective clinical study on extracorporeal shock wave therapy combined with plateletrich plasma injection for knee osteoarthritis,” Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 1–5, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  40. W. Z. Su, Y. J. Lin, G. W. Wang, and Z. Geng, “Therapeutic efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy combined with sodium hyaluronate injection on knee osteoarthritis,” Chinese Journal of Anatomy and Clinics, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 418–421, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  41. L. L. Wang, Y. Dong, S. Liang et al., “et alClinical application of radial shock wave therapy in knee osteoarthritis,” The Journal of Cervicodynia And Lumbodynia, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 354-355, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  42. Y. Wei, Clinical efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave combined with manipulation in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine, 2018.
  43. T. Y. Wu, X. Zhao, and Y. Guo, “Evaluation of the effect of extracorporeal shock wave on early and middle stage osteoarthritis,” Psychological Doctor, vol. 24, no. 27, pp. 121-122, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  44. W. Wu, L. Ye, B. J. Zheng et al., “Efficacy and safety of extracorporea I shock wave therapy for knee osteoarthritis,” Shanghai Medical Journal, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 669–672, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  45. B. Z. Xie, D. D. Li, N. Yin, and Z. W. Wang, “A clinical study on treating knee osteoarthritis in early and middle stage by fumigation with Pingle Xitongning plus shock wave,” Clinical Journal of Chinese Medicine, vol. 11, no. 25, pp. 109–111, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  46. Z. W. Yang Qinxian, C. Cuiping, C. Zhe, and T. Yongsheng, “A clinical study on treating knee osteoarthritis by extracorporeal shock wave plus TCM medicine fumigation,” Clinical Journal of Chinese Medicine, vol. 9, no. 35, pp. 81–83, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  47. T. Zhang, W. B. Liu, H. Li, and L. Xiao, “The clinical study of radial shock wave therapy in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis,” Medical Innovation of China, vol. 14, no. 30, pp. 36–40, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  48. A. Q. Zhao, W. L. Xie, and Y. Wang, “Effect of extracorporeal shock wave on the level of chemerin in serum and synovia in patients with knee osteoarthritis,” Medical Journal of Southeast China, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 498–500, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  49. Z. Zhao, R. Jing, Z. Shi, B. Zhao, Q. Ai, and G. Xing, “Efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 185, no. 2, pp. 661–666, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. L. Zheng, Analysis of the short-term effect of the treatment on knee osteoarthritis by extracorporeal shock wave, Wannan Medical College, 2016.
  51. Z. Zhong, B. Liu, G. Liu et al., “A randomized controlled trial on the effects of low-dose extracorporeal shockwave therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 100, no. 9, pp. 1695–1702, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. Z. Y. Zhong, G. H. Liu, W. Q. Gu et al., “Clinical curative effect of radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy combined with muscle strengthening exercise on mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis,” Geriatric Health Care, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 490–493, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  53. A. Akinci, M. Al Shaker, M. H. Chang et al., “Predictive factors and clinical biomarkers for treatment in patients with chronic pain caused by osteoarthritis with a central sensitisation component,” International Journal of Clinical Practice, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 31–44, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. S. Ashford and J. Williard, “Osteoarthritis: a review,” The Nurse Practitioner, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1–8, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. A. Litwic, M. H. Edwards, E. M. Dennison, and C. Cooper, “Epidemiology and burden of osteoarthritis,” British Medical Bulletin, vol. 105, pp. 185–199, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. T. E. McAlindon, R. R. Bannuru, M. C. Sullivan et al., “OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 363–388, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. S. M. Hussain, D. W. Neilly, S. Baliga, S. Patil, and R. Meek, “Knee osteoarthritis: a review of management options,” Scottish Medical Journal, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 7–16, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. C. Sostres, C. J. Gargallo, and A. Lanas, “Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and upper and lower gastrointestinal mucosal damage,” Arthritis Research & Therapy, vol. 15, Supplement 3, p. S3, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. E. M. Ilieva, M. Gonkova, I. Todorova, and R. Minchev, “New field of application of radial shock wave therapy - osteoarthritis,” Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 57, article e268, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. M. Imamura, S. Alamino, W. Hsing, F. Alfieri, C. Schmitz, and L. Battistella, “Radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy for disabling pain due to severe primary knee osteoarthritis,” Journal of rehabilitation medicine, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 54–62, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. J.-H. Kim, J.-Y. Kim, C.-M. Choi et al., “The dose-related effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for knee osteoarthritis,” Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 616–623, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. J. Zwerver, C. Waugh, H. van der Worp, and A. Scott, “Can shockwave therapy improve tendon metabolism?” Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol. 920, pp. 275–281, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. J.-H. Cheng and C.-J. Wang, “Biological mechanism of shockwave in bone,” International Journal of Surgery, vol. 24, no. Part B, pp. 143–146, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. C. J. Wang, J. H. Cheng, W. Y. Chou, S. L. Hsu, J. H. Chen, and C. Y. Huang, “Changes of articular cartilage and subchondral bone after extracorporeal shockwave therapy in osteoarthritis of the knee,” International Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 213–223, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. Q. Ji and C. He, “Extracorporeal shockwave therapy promotes chondrogenesis in cartilage tissue engineering: a hypothesis based on previous evidence,” Medical Hypotheses, vol. 91, pp. 9–15, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. C.-J. Wang, F.-S. Wang, K. D. Yang et al., “Shock wave therapy induces neovascularization at the tendon–bone junction: a study in rabbits,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 984–989, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. F. S. Wang, C. J. Wang, Y. J. Chen et al., “Ras induction of superoxide activates ERK-dependent angiogenic transcription factor HIF-1alpha and VEGF-A expression in shock wave-stimulated osteoblasts,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 279, no. 11, pp. 10331–10337, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. L. Martini, G. Giavaresi, M. Fini et al., “Effect of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on osteoblastlike cells,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 413, pp. 269–280, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. C. V. B. de Gusmão, N. A. Batista, V. T. V. Lemes et al., “Effect of Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Stimulation, Extracorporeal Shockwaves and Radial Pressure Waves on Akt, BMP-2, ERK-2, FAK and TGF-β1 During Bone Healing in Rat Tibial Defects,” Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 2140–2161, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. E. Suzuki, H. Ochiai-Shino, H. Aoki et al., “Akt activation is required for TGF-β1-induced osteoblast differentiation of MC3T3-E1 pre-osteoblasts,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 12, article e112566, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. C. J. Wang, K. D. Yang, J. Y. Ko, C. C. Huang, H. Y. Huang, and F. S. Wang, “The effects of shockwave on bone healing and systemic concentrations of nitric oxide (NO), TGF-beta1, VEGF and BMP-2 in long bone non-unions,” Nitric Oxide, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 298–303, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. S.-L. Hsu, J.-H. Cheng, C.-J. Wang, J. Y. Ko, and C. H. Hsu, “Extracorporeal shockwave therapy enhances expression of Pdia-3 which is a key factor of the 1α,25-dihydroxyvitamin D 3 rapid membrane signaling pathway in treatment of early osteoarthritis of the knee,” International Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 1220–1230, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. J. Chen, C. R. Dosier, J. H. Park et al., “Mineralization of three-dimensional osteoblast cultures is enhanced by the interaction of 1α,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 and BMP2 via two specific vitamin D receptors,” Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 40–51, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. H. Zhang, Z. L. Li, F. Yang et al., “Radial shockwave treatment promotes human mesenchymal stem cell self-renewal and enhances cartilage healing,” Stem Cell Research & Therapy, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 54, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Lu Chen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views4848
Downloads1252
Citations

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.