Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 6, 2026
A Treatment Protocol for Achilles Tendinopathy with Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy
Published on: August 2, 2024
Supervised exercises compared with radial extracorporeal shock-wave therapy for subacromial shoulder pain: 1-year
Kaia Engebretsen1, Margreth Grotle, Erik Bautz-Holter
1Oslo University Hospital, Ullevaal, Kirkeveien 166, 0407 Oslo, Norway. kaiabe@medisin.uio.no
Background:
Evidence from a recent randomized controlled trial indicated that supervised exercises (SE) were more effective than radial extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (rESWT) for the treatment of subacromial shoulder pain in the short to medium term. Little knowledge exists about the long-term results of rESWT for subacromial pain.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of rESWT and SE provided to patients with subacromial shoulder pain after 1 year.
Design:
This was a single-blind randomized controlled trial.
Setting:
The study was conducted in the outpatient clinic of the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department at Oslo University Hospital, Ullevaal, Norway.
Patients:
One hundred four patients with subacromial shoulder pain lasting at least 3 months participated. Patients were randomly assigned to either an rESWT group (n=52) or an SE group (n=52).
Intervention:
The rESWT intervention consisted of one session weekly for 4 to 6 weeks. The SE intervention consisted of two 45-minute sessions per week for up to 12 weeks.
Measurements:
The primary outcome measure was the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. Secondary outcome measures were questions regarding pain and function and work status.
Results:
After 1 year, an intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant differences between the 2 groups for the primary outcome measure (-7.6 points, 95% confidence interval=-16.6 to 0.5) and pain, function, and medication use. Twenty-nine participants (60%) in the SE group versus 24 participants (52%) in the rESWT group were categorized as clinically improved. Thirty-eight participants in the SE group were at work compared with 30 participants in the rESWT group (odds ratio=1.1, 95% confidence interval=1.0 to 1.2). Fewer patients in the SE group had received additional treatments between 18 weeks and 1 year.
Limitations:
The lack of a placebo control group, the lack of a cost-benefit analysis, and the small sample size were limitations of the study.
Conclusion:
No significant difference was found between the SE and rESWT groups at the 1-year follow-up. More participants in the SE group had returned to work.
