Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2025
Treatment Protocol for Rotator Cuff Calcific Tendinitis Using a Single-Crystal Piezoelectric Focused Shock Wave Source
Published on: December 23, 2022
The effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy. A systematic review
Fabrizio Brindisino1, Sharon Marruganti2, Domenico Lorusso3
1Department of Medicine and Health Science "Vincenzo Tiberio", University of Molise c/o Cardarelli Hospital, Campobasso, Italy.
Purpose:
To investigate if Extracorporeal Shock Wave therapy (ESWT) is effective in reducing pain and disability, in improving function, quality of life and complete resorption rate of calcification in patients with Rotator Cuff Calcific Tendinopathy. To investigate which modality of ESWT brings the greatest clinical improvements between High (HE)-SWT and Low Energy (LE)-SWT and between Focal (F)-SWT and Radial (R)-SWT.
Methods:
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL Database, and PEDro databases until February 2024 were searched. Study registers were further investigated. The Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed with the Revised Cochrane RoB Tool (RoB 2). The certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE.
Results:
Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were included. None was judged as overall low RoB. Comparing ESWT and Ultrasound Guided Needling Procedures (USGNP), the pooled results reported a significant difference favoring USGNP in pain at <24 and <48 weeks (MD = 1.17, p = 0.004, I2 = 59%; MD = 1.31, p = 0.004, I2 = 42%, respectively). Comparing ESWT and sham-ESWT, the pooled results reported a clinically significant difference favoring ESWT in pain and function at 24 weeks (MD = -5.72, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%; Standardized Mean Difference = 2.94, p = 0.02 I2 = 98%, respectively). Comparing HE-SWT and LE-SWT, HE-SWT was statistically and clinically superior in pain and function at <24 weeks (MD = -1.83, p = 0.03, I2 = 87%; MD = 14.60, p = 0.002, I2 = 77%, respectively) and showed a significantly higher complete resorption rate of calcification at 12 weeks (Risk Ratio = 2.53, p = 0.001, I2 = 0%). F-SWT and R-SWT appear equally effective in reducing pain, improving disability and resorption rate. The certainty of evidence was rated as very low through GRADE approach.
Conclusion:
USGNP was statistically superior to ESWT in pain reduction at <24 and <48 weeks. ESWT was clinically better to sham-ESWT in pain reduction and function improvement at 24 weeks. HE-SWT was clinically more effective than LE-SWT in reducing pain, improving function at <24 weeks, and resolving calcific deposits at 12 weeks, while no differences between F-SWT and R-SWT were reported.
