TY - JOUR
T1 - Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy in the Treatment of Trigger Finger
T2 - A Randomized Controlled Study
AU - Chen, Yu Pin
AU - Lin, Chung Ying
AU - Kuo, Yi Jie
AU - Lee, Oscar Kuang Sheng
N1 - Funding Information:
Supported by Wan Fang Hospital (grant no. 108-wf-phd-02); the Ministry of Science and Technology (grant nos. MOST 109-2926-I-010-501 , MOST 107-2314-B-010-015-MY3 , MOST 109-2926-I-010-502 , MOST 109-2321-B-010-005 , MOST 108-2923-B-010-002-MY3, MOST 109-2823-8-010-003-CV , MOST 109-2622-B-010-006 , MOST 109-2321-B-010-006 ); the “Development and Construction Plan” of the School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, now known as National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (grant no. 107F-M01-0504); and Aiming for the Top University Plan, a grant from Ministry of Education.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - 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, 1500 impulses, once per week for 4wk), a low-energy ESWT (LS) group (energy flux density of 0.006 mJ/mm2, 3 bar, 1500 impulses, once per week for 4wk), 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=.01) and lower qDASH (P=.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.
AB - 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, 1500 impulses, once per week for 4wk), a low-energy ESWT (LS) group (energy flux density of 0.006 mJ/mm2, 3 bar, 1500 impulses, once per week for 4wk), 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=.01) and lower qDASH (P=.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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85110538434&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85110538434&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.apmr.2021.04.015
DO - 10.1016/j.apmr.2021.04.015
M3 - Article
C2 - 34029555
AN - SCOPUS:85110538434
SN - 0003-9993
VL - 102
SP - 2083-2090.e1
JO - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
JF - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
IS - 11
ER -