高能体外震波(ESWT)治疗长骨骨不连

[目的] 探讨使用高能体外震波（ESWT）治疗长骨骨不连的效果。[方法] 本组20例长骨骨折切开复位内固定或石膏外固定治疗后骨不连，2例萎缩型，18例增生型。采用C臂机结合Ossatron ESWT治疗仪，分别取尺、桡骨24kv，肱骨26kv，胫骨、股骨28kv的震波强度，尺、桡骨1500次，肱骨3000次，股骨及胫骨6000次。[结果] 平均随访15．2个月。8例3个月后骨愈合，6例4个月后骨愈合，3例5个月后骨愈合，1例6个月后仍未愈合，再次行ESWT治疗后4个月愈合，2例6个月后未愈合，行切开复位内固定＋植骨后愈合。平均愈合时间为3．9个月，愈合率达90％。[结论] ESWT可以做为治疗长骨骨不连及骨延迟愈合的有效治疗方法。     

体外高能震波治疗骨不连和骨延迟愈合的初步结果

目的观察Ossatron高能体外震波仪治疗骨不连和骨延迟愈合的效果。方法2004年10月～2005年10月采用体外震波治疗18例四肢骨折术后骨不连和4例骨延迟愈合患者,C型臂X线机透视定位,根据不同骨折部位选择合适的震波能量、频率和冲击次数。内固定不稳定者震波治疗后以石膏或支具固定6～8周。术后6、12周及以后每个月随访复查X线片,直至骨折愈合。结果所有患者获3～12个月(平均6．7个月)随访。10例患者震波后出现局部瘀斑或肿胀,术后1～3 d缓解；无其它并发症发生。22例患者中,13例(59．1%)获骨性愈合,骨折愈合时间平均为4．3个月(6周～6个月)。18例内固定稳定的患者中12例骨折获愈合,其愈合率为66．7%。9例患者(40．9%)骨折未愈合。结论震波治疗对骨折断端稳定的骨不连和延迟愈合具有一定疗效,其突出特点是安全、无创。     

高能震波治疗骨折延迟愈合或不愈合

高能震波治疗骨折延迟愈合或不愈合已有近20年历史,具有非侵入性和并发症少的优点,疗效明显.它应成为治疗骨折延迟愈合和不愈合的首选疗法.该文回顾近年高能震波促进骨折愈合的文献,对治疗骨折延迟愈合和骨折不愈合的基本原理、作用机制、使用仪器及参数、临床效果进行简要描述和分析,提出影响因素、安全性及今后应注重的方向.     

高能震波对骨痂中骨形成蛋白表达的影响

目的 观察高能震波（ＨＥＳＷ）对骨痂中骨形成蛋白（ＢＭＰ）表达的影响，探讨其促进骨折愈合的机理。方法 手术造成家兔双侧胫骨中段标准骨折模型，对一侧胫骨骨折部施以ＨＥＳＷ，另一侧为对照组，术后每周进行Ｘ线及组织学检查，并取骨痂组织切片用ＢＭＰ抗体进行免疫组化染色（ＳＡＢＣ法（）。结果 实验组骨痂中ＢＭＰ表达强度在第２－４周时明在于对照组（Ｐ〈０．０１），且Ｘ线摄片及组织学观察均显示实验组骨折愈合时间     

高能震波在骨科的应用

本文概要介绍高能震波对骨组织的生物学效应以及在骨科的应用。     

体外冲击波治疗骨不愈的临床观察

目的观察体外冲击波治疗骨不愈的疗效及安全性。方法应用体外震波碎石机所产生的高能震波对25例骨折不愈合病人进行治疗,每月复查X线片检查,了解骨折愈合情况。震波治疗3个月后如骨折处无明显骨痂生长,则再行一次震波治疗。结果震波治疗后,骨痂出现时间为4～11周,平均9周。25例中,5例无效;20例有较明显骨痂生长,其中18例最终骨折完全愈合,骨折愈合时间为10～21周,平均14周。治疗总有效率为80%,治愈率为72%。震波治疗后未观察到肢体神经血管损伤等并发症。结论体外冲击波治疗骨不愈疗效可靠、创伤小、方法简单安全,可作为治疗骨不愈的首选方法。     

高能震波促进骨折愈合机理的探讨

目的 探讨高能震波（ＨＥＳＷ）对兔骨折愈合的影响及其机理。方法 手术造成家兔双侧胫骨标准骨折模型,对１侧胫骨骨折部施以ＨＥＳＷ;另１侧为对照。术后每周进行Ｘ线及组织学检查,并取骨折骨痂切片用骨形态发生蛋白（ＢＭＰ）抗体进行免疫组织化学染色（ＳＡＢＣ法）。结果 Ｘ线摄片及组织学观察显示,实验侧骨痂出现时间及骨折愈合时间均明显早于对照组;骨痂区毛细血管计数、ＢＭＰ表达强度在第２～４周时实验侧均明显大于     

感染性骨不愈合的治疗

目的 探讨感染性骨不愈合的治疗原则和方法。方法 对１６例感染性骨不愈合患者在应用有效抗生素、彻底清除病灶的基础上,依骨缺损的长度一期支撑植骨,修复创面后用骨外固定器加压固定。结果 全部病例均于手术后３～１３个月,平均６．４个月达到骨愈合,感染得天彻底控制,伤口愈合,并保证了肢体长度的均衡。结论 采用上述综合治疗措施, 经和缩短了治疗过程,一期植骨避免了为矫正肢体短缩而再行肢体延长术。骨外固定器应用     

体外震波治疗在男科疾病中的应用

体外震波治疗(ESWT)自1983年首次被用于治疗泌尿系结石以来已被广泛应用于各个领域。近年来,ESWT在男科疾病中的应用逐渐增多。现有研究显示:ESWT治疗Peyronie氏病可使83%的患者感到疼痛减轻,66%的患者对治疗持正面评价;ESWT在治疗器质性勃起功能障碍时能显著改善患者性生活的质量;ESWT在治疗慢性非细菌性前列腺炎时具有较好的疗效,尤其在缓解疼痛方面疗效明显。ESWT为男科疾病的治疗提供了新的思路和选择。ESWT治疗男科疾病的作用机制尚未明确,需要深入进行基础研究来阐明和开展多中心、大样本的临床随机对照试验来验证。     

体外震波碎石对肾脏的影响

1980年西德研制出体外震波碎石机,为泌尿系结石提供了一种新的治疗工具。目前体外震波碎石术(ESWL)碎石成功率在90%以上,3月结石排净率为65～90%。ESWL虽能有效地震碎结石,但与传统的治疗方法相比,其有效性和安全性仍存在较多的争论。主要集中在两方面:①ESWL后结石复发问题;②ESWL对肾脏及其邻近组织产生的副作用问题。现就后者作一综述。一、肾出血Abrahams等用震波冲击狗肾,冲击1000     

体外冲击波治疗骨折延迟愈合和骨不连研究进展

骨折后延迟愈合及骨不连的发生率高达5%~10%，目前手术是治疗骨不连的“黄金标准”，主要包括清理骨折断端、再通髓腔、自体骨移植及更换固定方式，但骨不连的手术治疗存在创伤大、感染以及二次手术取出内固定的问题。近年来，体外冲击波疗法（ESWT）因其无创、高效、低廉等优势在骨肌疾病的治疗中得到广泛应用，尤其在治疗骨折延迟愈合和骨不连方面取得良好疗效，本文就体外冲击波疗法在治疗骨折骨不连的进展做一综述，期望能够对临床工作有所帮助。     

体外冲击波治疗骨折延迟愈合和骨不连研究进展

骨折后延迟愈合及骨不连的发生率高达5%~10%,目前手术是治疗骨不连的“黄金标准”,主要包括清理骨折断端、再通髓腔、自体骨移植及更换固定方式,但骨不连的手术治疗存在创伤大、感染以及二次手术取出内固定的问题。近年来,体外冲击波疗法（ESWT）因其无创、高效、低廉等优势在骨肌疾病的治疗中得到广泛应用,尤其在治疗骨折延迟愈合和骨不连方面取得良好疗效,本文就体外冲击波疗法在治疗骨折骨不连的进展做一综述,期望能够对临床工作有所帮助。     

Comparison of ultrasound and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in lateral epicondylosis

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and therapeutic ultrasound (US) in the treatment of lateral epicondylosis (LE).

体外冲击波在促进骨愈合中的应用

目的:观察体外冲击波促进骨折愈合、治疗骨不连的疗效。方法:选取22例外伤性骨折愈合延迟、骨不连患者进行体外冲击波冲击治疗,治疗后每4～6周进行X线片复查,观察骨折愈合情况。首次冲击波治疗12周后如骨折处无明显骨痂形成,则进行第2次冲击波治疗。冲击波能量为0.4mJ/mm2,每次脉冲总数为1600～2400次。结果:22例下肢外伤性骨折愈合延迟及骨不连经体外冲击波治疗后,骨性骨痂形成的时间为4～12周,20例有明显骨痂形成,其中17例在治疗后3～6个月内骨折完全愈合。2例胫骨下段骨折冲击波治疗无效。结论:体外冲击波在治疗骨不连,促进骨折愈合方面效果满意,有广阔的应用前景。     

冲击波复合激痛点注射对颈肩肌筋膜疼痛综合征的治疗效果

目的比较压痛点注射、体外冲击波疗法(extracorporeal shock wave therapy,ESWT)以及ESWT复合激痛点注射治疗颈肩肌筋膜疼痛综合征的安全性和有效性。方法 2013年5月至2015年2月在门诊诊治的颈肩肌筋膜疼痛综合征患者90例,男48例,女42例,年龄18~65岁,随机分为三组,每组30例。A组:每个压痛点注射复合镇痛液5ml;B组:以压痛点定位冲击点,每次治疗一个或多个冲击点(疼痛区域),每个冲击点次数2 000次;C组:冲击波治疗后,在冲击波诱发的激痛点注射复合镇痛液5 ml。三组的治疗周期均为每周1次,连续治疗3次,治疗时间为5~10min,并随访记录首次治疗前(T0)、首次治疗后即刻(T1)、首次治疗后1周(T2)、2周(T3)、3周(T4)的VAS评分、颈椎的活动度(ROM)评分、症状改善优良率、总有效率。结果 90例患者中81例获得完全随访,B组有3例、C组有2例出现了皮下淤血,3d后消散,无其他不良事件发生。与T0时比较,T1~T4时三组VAS评分均明显降低(P0.05);T2~T4时,三组的VAS评分随着时间的延长、治疗次数的增加逐渐降低;T1时B组和C组的VAS评分明显低于A组(P0.05),T2、T3时C组VAS评分明显低于A组和B组(P0.05),T4时C组VAS评分明显低于A组(P0.05)。与T0时比较,T3时三组ROM评分均明显降低(P0.05),T3时B组和C组ROM评分明显低于A组(P0.05)。末次随访总有效率C组明显高于A组和B组(P0.05),A、B两组差异无统计学意义。结论 ESWT复合激痛点注射治疗颈肩肌筋膜疼痛综合征无明显损伤、安全、简便、疗效显著、患者满意度高,可作为颈肩肌筋膜疼痛综合征综合治疗的选择。     

Ultrasonographic evaluation at 6-month follow-up of plantar fasciitis after extracorporeal shock wave therapy

Introduction The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) on the ultrasonographic appearance of chronically painful, proximal plantar fasciitis.Materials and methods Twenty-two patients with a unilateral proximal plantar fasciitis were prospectively enrolled after unsuccessful conservative treatment lasting 6 months. The contralateral plantar fascia was used as the control. ESWT (3×3000 shock waves/session of 0.2 mJ/mm²) was performed at weekly intervals. The thickness of the plantar fascia was measured ultrasonographically about 2 cm distal of the medial calcaneal tuberosity. Pain estimation on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the comfortable walking time were recorded. No local anaesthesia was applied. Follow-up was done at 6, 12 and 24 weeks.Results Before ESWT, the plantar fasciitis side was ultrasonographically significantly thicker than the control side (p<0.05), whereas 6 months after ESWT, the thickness of the fascia was no longer significantly different. The decrease in thickness of the plantar fasciitis side was significant (p<0.05). Pain during activities of daily living decreased by 79% according to the VAS, and the comfortable walking time increased, both significantly (p<0.01). In patients with little pain (VAS<30), the thickness of the plantar fasciitis side was significantly less (p<0.01) compared with patients who still suffered more pain (VAS>30).Conclusion After ESWT, the thickness of the plantar fascia in patients with plantar fasciitis decreased, pain and walking time improved (all significantly).     

Comparison of low level laser therapy and extracorporeal shock wave in treatment of chronic lateral epicondylitis

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) ver-sus low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in treating chronic lateral epicondylitis (CLE).MethodsIn this prospective study, 52 patients (24 males, 28 females; mean age=48 years; age range=30–70 years) with a diagnosis of CLE were included and randomized into two groups (26 in each group): ESWT group (14 males, 12 females; mean age=48±10 years) or LLLT group (10 males, 16 females; mean age=48±11 years). ESWT was applied for 5 weeks with one session per week, while LLLT was applied with 15 sessions on consecutive days. All patients were evaluated using Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (DASH), Patient-Related Lateral Epicondy-litis Evaluation (PRTEE), and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) before and after the treatments.ResultsIn the comparison of baseline data between treatment groups, significant differences were observed only in SF-Physical functioning and SF-Energy/fatigue scores (p=0.035 and p=0.038, re-spectively), which were 77.1±17.2 and 56.3±17.2 in ESWT group and 66.5±18.0 and 44.8±21.5 in LLLT group, respectively. In the comparison of post-treatment data between groups, there were sig-nificant differences in all scores (p<0.05) except two subscales of SF-36, which were SF-role limita-tions due to emotional problems (p=0.092) and physical health (p=0.147), respectively. The other subscales of SF-36, PRTEE and DASH scores obtained after the treatments were better in ESWT group than in LLLT group. The comparison of pre-and post-treatment scores in each group revealed significant improvements in all scores (p<0.05), except SF-36 subscales, including energy/fatigue, emotional well-being, social functioning, and general health scores (p>0.05).ConclusionEvidence from this study revealed that although both treatment modalities were effective in the treatment of CLE, ESWT seemed to more effective in pain relief and functional recovery than LLLT.Level of EvidenceLevel II, Therapeutic study     

Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and conventional wound therapy (CWT) for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds. All English‐language articles on ESWT for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds indexed in PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and HealthSTAR published prior to June 2017 were included, as well as corresponding articles cited in reference lists of related review articles. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration''s “risk of bias” tool. Study design, subject demographics, wound aetiology, treatment protocols, assessment indexes, and follow‐up duration were extracted. The fixed or random‐effects model was used to calculate the pooled effect sizes according to studies’ heterogeneity. Ten randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 473 patients were included in this systematic review and meta‐analysis. The meta‐analysis showed that ESWT statistically significantly increased the healing rate of acute and chronic soft tissue wounds 2.73‐fold (odds ratio, OR = 3.73, 95% confidence interval, CI: 2.30‐6.04, P < .001) and improved wound‐healing area percentage by 30.45% (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) = 30.45; 95% CI: 23.79‐37.12; P < .001). ESWT reduced wound‐healing time by 3 days (SMD = −2.86, 95% CI:‐3.78 to −1.95, P < .001) for acute soft tissue wounds and 19 days (SMD = −19.11, 95% CI: −23.74 to −14.47, P < .001) for chronic soft tissue wounds and the risk of wound infection by 53% (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.24‐0.92, P = .03) when compared with CWT alone. Serious adverse effects were not reported. ESWT showed better therapeutic effects on acute and chronic soft tissue wounds compared with CWT alone. However, higher‐quality and well‐controlled RCTs are needed to further assess the role of ESWT for acute and chronic soft tissue wounds.     

发散式冲击波治疗间盘源性下腰痛近期疗效观察

目的：评价发散式冲击波（RSWT）治疗间盘源性下腰痛的近期疗效。方法：对43例间盘源性下腰痛患者进行发散式冲击波治疗,配合适当的卧床休息和躯干核心稳定肌功能锻炼,比较治疗1w、2w及治疗结束后1月、3月随访时的患者的VAS疼痛评分及Oswestry功能指数的变化。结果：治疗后1w、2w、1月、3月不同时段所观察记录VAS疼痛分值及Oswestry功能指数均较治疗前明显下降,差异有显著性（P〈0．05）。结论：发散式冲击波可有效缓解下腰背部疼痛并能改善腰部功能,其近期疗效满意,值得推广并行进一步前瞻对照研究。     

体外冲击波治疗与手术治疗骨折延迟愈合临床疗效对比分析

目的 对比体外冲击波治疗（ESWT）与手术治疗骨折延迟愈合的临床治疗效果。方法 将30例在2017年1月至2018年1月于我院就诊且被诊断为骨折延迟愈合的患者随机分为手术治疗组和冲击波治疗组,每组各15例患者。手术治疗组行手术治疗,每月定期复查X线,冲击波治疗组采用体外冲击波治疗仪治疗,治疗期间每疗程治疗结束后复查X线片,通过观察治疗前与治疗后第1、第2、第3疗程的骨折处X线骨痂生长情况,对两组患者的骨痂形成情况进行评分,通过骨痂形成情况评分的高低、骨折愈合时间的长短和骨折愈合标准评价及治疗费用的高低,以此来探讨ESWT治疗骨折延迟愈合的临床疗效。结果 治疗后至少随访18个月,阅复查X线片示,两组患者的骨痂X线评分均高于治疗前。冲击波治疗组13例患者成功愈合,1例未完全愈合,骨折愈合时间平均为8.267个月,1例至随访结束骨折处未出现放射学愈合迹象。手术治疗组14例患者成功愈合,骨折愈合时间平均为8.714个月,1例至随访结束骨折处未出现放射学愈合迹象。两组患者至随访结束均未见明显血管神经损伤或内固定断裂等并发症发生。结论 ESWT对骨折延迟愈合有显著的临床疗效,且因其具有非侵入性、方法简单、安全有效、并发症率较低且费用相对较低等优点。