Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 13, 2025
Treatment Protocol for Rotator Cuff Calcific Tendinitis Using a Single-Crystal Piezoelectric Focused Shock Wave Source
Published on: December 23, 2022
Greater trochanteric pain syndrome: focused shockwave therapy versus an ultrasound guided injection: a randomised
Catriona Heaver1, Megan Pinches1, Jan Herman Kuiper1,2
1Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital, Oswestry, UK.
Background:
Greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) is a common problem with an incidence of 1.8-5.6 per 1000 population. Physiotherapy, anti-inflammatories, corticosteroid injections and surgery have all been described in the management of GTPS, with limited, temporal success. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) has been proposed as a potential non-invasive management option for this difficult presentation.
Method:
We ran a prospective, 2-arm, single-blinded, randomised control trial comparing focused shockwave therapy (f-ESWT) to an ultrasound guided corticosteroid injection. Primary outcome measure was the visual analogue pain score. Secondary outcome measures included the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Trendelenburg test for function; SF-36 for quality of life (QoL); and a Likert scale question for subjective assessment of symptom improvement.
Results:
104 patients (10 males and 94 females), of mean age 61.5 years were recruited. 53 were randomised to receive ESWT and 51 to receive an image-guided injection. 11 patients were lost to follow-up. There were no significant differences in baseline scores between groups.At 3 months, pain, function and QoL scores had improved in both groups but were not statistically significant. The Trendelenburg test was significantly improved in the f-ESWT group with 80% patients being negative compared to 20% at baseline (p < 0.001).At 12 months, across all outcomes, the ESWT group had significantly improved scores compared to the injection group; VAS 37.1 versus 55.0 (p = 0.007, 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-30.8), HHS 69.7 versus 57.5 (p = 0.002, 95% CI, -20.0 to -4.6) and SF-36 52.4 versus 47.7 (p = 0.048, 95% CI, -9.31 to -0.04). The improvement in Trendelenburg test was maintained in the ESWT group, but the injection group had reverted to baseline (p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
We have shown f-ESWT is an effective treatment for patients with GTPS. We would advocate f-ESWT as an effective non-invasive treatment modality for this challenging patient population.Trial Registration No. ISRCTN8338223.
