Shockwave Treatment vs Surgery for Proximal Fifth Metatarsal Stress Fractures in Soccer Players: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: To compare the clinical, radiologic, and functional outcomes between shockwave and operative treatments for proximal fifth metatarsal stress fractures in soccer players in a pilot study. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2019, 18 soccer players with fifth metatarsal stress fractures attended at Mutualidad de Futbolistas Españoles-Delegación Catalana were included. Patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups receiving either surgery with an intramedullary screw (group 1) or high-energy focused extracorporeal shockwave treatment (group 2 performed once a week for 3 weeks using 2000 impulses at an energy flux density of 0.21 mJ/mm2 and 4 Hz frequency). Clinical (pain), radiologic (bone healing), and functional (Tegner Activity Scale and American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society [AOFAS] ankle-hindfoot scales) outcomes before and after receiving the treatment were compared between both groups. In addition, ability and time to return to play was also compared between groups. RESULTS: No patients were lost to follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences at last follow-up between surgery and extracorporeal shockwave treatment for bone healing, pain relief, AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score, Tegner score, and time return to play. No complications were reported in either of the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, extracorporeal shockwave treatment and operative treatment were found to be equally effective at reducing pain, achieving bone healing, and allowing the soccer players to return to play after proximal fifth metatarsal stress fractures. This study suggests that ESWT may be a good option for the management of proximal fifth metatarsal stress fractures in soccer players. If this approach proves successful in larger trials, the shockwave approach might help avoid known complications of the surgical treatment like wound problems, nerve injury, and hardware intolerance. Further investigations with larger sample size should be conducted in order to confirm the present conclusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic, pilot randomized controlled trial.

Focused Shockwave Treatment for Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) is a condition of lateral hip pain. Its physiopathology remains unknown, and there is no consensus on optimal management. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of electromagnetic-focused extracorporeal shockwave treatment (F-ESWT) in patients with GTPS. METHODS: This multicenter clinical trial included 103 patients with chronic GTPS randomly assigned to the treatment group, consisting of electromagnetic F-ESWT and a specific exercise protocol, or the control group, receiving sham F-ESWT and the same exercise protocol. Both groups were treated with 3 weekly sessions; the F-ESWT group received an energy flux density of 0.20 mJ/mm, whereas the control group received 0.01 mJ/mm. Patients were assessed at baseline and 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after treatment. A visual analogue scale (VAS) score for pain at 2 months was the primary outcome. The Harris hip score (HHS), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), EuroQoL-5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D), and Roles and Maudsley score were used as secondary outcomes. Complications were recorded. RESULTS: The mean VAS score decreased from 6.3 at baseline in both groups to 2.0 in the F-ESWT group versus 4.7 in the control group at 2 months; the 2-month score differed significantly between groups (p < 0.001). All secondary outcomes at all follow-up intervals were significantly better in the F-ESWT group, except for the LEFS score at 1 month after treatment (p = 0.25). No complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: F-ESWT in association with a specific exercise program is safe and effective for GTPS, with a success rate of 86.8% at 2 months after treatment, which was maintained until the end of follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.