-
American Journal of Physical Medicine &... Aug 2022Tendon injury is prevalent and costly in the United States, comprising 45% of the 66 million musculoskeletal injuries and costing $114 billion annually. Surgical and... (Review)
Review
Tendon injury is prevalent and costly in the United States, comprising 45% of the 66 million musculoskeletal injuries and costing $114 billion annually. Surgical and therapeutic methods, such as arthroscopic surgery, dry needling, and physical therapy, produce mixed success in reintroducing a healing response in tendinopathy due in part to inconsistent dosing and monitoring. Ultrasound is one therapeutic modality that has been shown to noninvasively induce bioeffects in tendon that may help promote healing. However, results from this modality have also been mixed. This review compares the current state of the field in therapeutic ultrasound and shockwave therapy, including low-intensity therapeutic ultrasound, extracorporeal shockwave therapy, and radial shockwave therapy, and evaluates the efficacy in treating tendinopathies with ultrasound. We found that the mixed successes may be attributed to the wide variety of achievable parameters within each broader treatment type and the lack of standardization in measurements and reporting. Despite mixed outcomes, all three therapies show potential as an alternative therapy with lower-risk adverse effects than more invasive methods like surgery. There is currently insufficient evidence to conclude which ultrasound modality or settings are most effective. More research is needed to understand the healing effects of these different therapeutic ultrasound and shockwave modalities.
Topics: Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; High-Energy Shock Waves; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Tendinopathy; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 35859290
DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001894 -
Progress in Biophysics and Molecular... 2007Therapeutic applications of ultrasound predate its use in imaging. A range of biological effects can be induced by ultrasound, depending on the exposure levels used. At... (Review)
Review
Therapeutic applications of ultrasound predate its use in imaging. A range of biological effects can be induced by ultrasound, depending on the exposure levels used. At low levels, beneficial, reversible cellular effects may be produced, whereas at high intensities instantaneous cell death is sought. Therapy ultrasound can therefore be broadly divided into "low power" and "high power" applications. The "low power" group includes physiotherapy, fracture repair, sonophoresis, sonoporation and gene therapy, whereas the most common use of "high power" ultrasound in medicine is probably now high intensity focused ultrasound. Therapeutic effect through the intensity spectrum is obtained by both thermal and non-thermal interaction mechanisms. At low intensities, acoustic streaming is likely to be significant, but at higher levels, heating and acoustic cavitation will predominate. While useful therapeutic effects are now being demonstrated clinically, the mechanisms by which they occur are often not well understood.
Topics: Fractures, Bone; Genetic Therapy; Humans; Lithotripsy; Neoplasms; Phonophoresis; Thrombosis; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 16930682
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2006.07.005 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jan 2023Objective: to systematically review the efficacy of microfocused ultrasound (MFU) for facial skin tightening. Methods: A systematic search was performed (Pubmed, Embase)... (Review)
Review
Objective: to systematically review the efficacy of microfocused ultrasound (MFU) for facial skin tightening. Methods: A systematic search was performed (Pubmed, Embase) to assess the efficacy of single MFU treatments for facial skin tightening. Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials, controlled trials, cohort studies and case series (n ≥ 10). Objective and subjective outcomes were assessed. Results: A total of 693 studies were identified of which 16 studies were eligible. All the studies involved female patients. MFU is capable of tightening the skin, as observed in studies measuring the results of brow lifts (0.47−1.7 mm) and submental lifts (measured as a 26−45 mm2 reduction in the submental area on lateral photographs). Data from the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) were pooled, and the day 90 pooled subjective investigator reported scores (IGAIS) (n = 337) showed that 92% of the patients demonstrated an improvement in skin tightening and/or in wrinkle reduction which continued up to one year. Longer-term follow-up data are not available. The patient-reported pooled scores (SGAIS) (n = 81) showed that the skin improvements were mild and continued to increase from 42% (90 days) to 53% (360 days) post-treatment. The MFU treatment was moderately painful and caused transient erythema with or without oedema. Other adverse effects were rare (2%), including dysesthesia (numbness or hypersensitivity), bruising and stinging, mandibular burns, striations and contact dermatitis. Various device settings, treatment protocols and energies were applied. Excessive skin laxity and a BMI > 30 were posed as relative contraindications for MFU treatment because positive results declined with an increase in laxity and BMI. Conclusions: MFU treatment is effective in tightening female patients’ mildly to moderately lax facial skin. Future studies should focus on objective treatment outcomes, optimising treatment regimens and male patients.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Ultrasonic Therapy; Face; Rhytidoplasty; Ultrasonography; Treatment Outcome; Skin Aging; Pain; Patient Satisfaction; Cosmetic Techniques
PubMed: 36674277
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20021522 -
Medicine Feb 2022Lateral epicondylitis is a common musculoskeletal disorder, and ultrasound therapy is one of the most used treatments in the clinic. The effect remains uncertain, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Lateral epicondylitis is a common musculoskeletal disorder, and ultrasound therapy is one of the most used treatments in the clinic. The effect remains uncertain, and the present paper aims to figure it out with a meta-analysis.
METHODS
The Pubmed, Cochrane library, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies published before Jure 1, 2021. Continuous variables were compared by calculating the standard difference of the means, whereas categorical dichotomous variables were assessed using relative risks. A random-effects model was used if the heterogeneity statistic was significant; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included in the quantitative analysis, including 442 participants (287 ultrasonic treated patients and 155 controls). The VAS scale decreased markedly after ultrasound therapy (P = .027). However, no statistically significant difference could be found between ultrasound therapy and the control groups at all post-treatment time points. Similarly, no benefits could be found when comparing the pre- and post-treatment grip strength with ultrasonic therapy (P = .324). Moreover, though ultrasound treatment always continues for a long time, the present study demonstrated there were no additional benefits when comparing short- and long-term outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
The ultrasound therapy is helpful to relieve pain for LE patients, but no such benefit could be found for grip strength. However, it has no significant advantage against other conservative treatments like rest and brace.
Topics: Humans; Pain Measurement; Tennis Elbow; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 35212276
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028822 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Aug 2019Tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis is a common source of pain among craftsmen. Although it cannot be completely resolved, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis is a common source of pain among craftsmen. Although it cannot be completely resolved, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and ultrasonics (US) have been found to be effective for tennis elbow as highlighted in previously published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reviews. However, the efficacy of these two therapies in treating tennis elbow is unknown. This meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of ESWT and US in relieving pain and restoring the functions of tennis elbow following tendinopathy.
METHODS
RCTs published in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and SpringerLink databases comparing ESWT and US in treating tennis elbow were identified by a software and manual search. The risk of bias and clinical relevance of the included studies were assessed. Publication bias was explored using funnel plot and statistical tests (Egger's test and Begg's test). The major outcomes of the studies were analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3.
RESULTS
Five RCTs comprising five patients were included in the present meta-analysis. The results revealed a significantly lower VAS score of pain in the ESWT group (1 month: MD = 4.47, p = 0.0001; 3 months: MD = 20.32, p < 0.00001; and 6 months: MD = 4.32, p < 0.0001) compared to US. Besides, the grip strength was markedly higher 3 months after the intervention in ESWT (MD = 8.87, p < 0.00001) than in the US group. Although no significant difference was observed in the scores of the elbow function after 3 months of treatment (SMD = 1.51, p = 0.13), the subjective scores of elbow functions were found to be better in the ESWT group (SMD = 3.34; p = 0.0008) compared to the US group.
CONCLUSIONS
Although there was no significant difference in the elbow function evaluation scores between ESWT and US, the superiority of the ESWT group in the VAS of pain (both at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months follow-ups) raised grip strength in ESWT group and the scores for subjective evaluation of efficacy indicated that ESWT offers more effective therapy for lateral epicondylitis than US therapy.
Topics: Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tennis Elbow; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonic Therapy; Ultrasonic Waves
PubMed: 31387611
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1290-y -
Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine :... Apr 2012Applications of ultrasound in medicine for therapeutic purposes have been accepted and beneficial uses of ultrasonic biological effects for many years. Low-power... (Review)
Review
Applications of ultrasound in medicine for therapeutic purposes have been accepted and beneficial uses of ultrasonic biological effects for many years. Low-power ultrasound of about 1 MHz has been widely applied since the 1950s for physical therapy in conditions such as tendinitis and bursitis. In the 1980s, high-pressure-amplitude shock waves came into use for mechanically resolving kidney stones, and "lithotripsy" rapidly replaced surgery as the most frequent treatment choice. The use of ultrasonic energy for therapy continues to expand, and approved applications now include uterine fibroid ablation, cataract removal (phacoemulsification), surgical tissue cutting and hemostasis, transdermal drug delivery, and bone fracture healing, among others. Undesirable bioeffects can occur, including burns from thermal-based therapies and severe hemorrhage from mechanical-based therapies (eg, lithotripsy). In all of these therapeutic applications of ultrasound bioeffects, standardization, ultrasound dosimetry, benefits assurance, and side-effect risk minimization must be carefully considered to ensure an optimal benefit to risk ratio for the patient. Therapeutic ultrasound typically has well-defined benefits and risks and therefore presents a manageable safety problem to the clinician. However, safety information can be scattered, confusing, or subject to commercial conflicts of interest. Of paramount importance for managing this problem is the communication of practical safety information by authoritative groups, such as the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, to the medical ultrasound community. In this overview, the Bioeffects Committee of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine outlines the wide range of therapeutic ultrasound methods, which are in clinical use or under study, and provides general guidance for ensuring therapeutic ultrasound safety.
Topics: Humans; Lithotripsy; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 22441920
DOI: 10.7863/jum.2012.31.4.623 -
Acta Orthopaedica Et Traumatologica... Sep 2018The 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... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
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).
METHODS
Our study enrolled 50 patients with LE. Patients were randomized into two groups. Group 1 underwent therapeutic US (n = 24; 5 males and 15 females; mean age: 43.75 ± 4.52) Group 2 underwent ESWT (n = 20; 8 males and 16 females; mean age: 46.04 ± 9.24). Patients were evaluated at baseline, after treatment,and 1 month following treatment. The outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS), algometer, grip dynamometer, quick-disability of the arm,shoulder,and hand (QDASH), patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey questionnairre.
RESULTS
Both groups showed significant improvements in terms of VAS (all p values < 0.0001), dynamometer (p = 0.001 vs p = 0.015), algometer (all p values < 0.0001), PRTEE (all p values < 0.0001), QDASH (all p values < 0.0001), and SF-36 scores (p = 0.001 vs p = 0.005) within time. There was no significant difference between the two groups, except algometer scores in favor of ESWT (p = 0.029).
CONCLUSION
ESWT and therapeutic US are equally effective in treating LE. ESWT is an alternative therapeutic intervention and as effective as US.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III, Therapeutic study.
Topics: Adult; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Female; Hand Strength; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Muscle Strength Dynamometer; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pain Measurement; Tennis Elbow; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 30497658
DOI: 10.1016/j.aott.2018.06.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014. Chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) has become one of the main causes of disability in the adult... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014. Chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) has become one of the main causes of disability in the adult population around the world. Although therapeutic ultrasound is not recommended in recent clinical guidelines, it is frequently used by physiotherapists in the treatment of chronic LBP.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic non-specific LBP. A secondary objective was to determine the most effective dosage and intensity of therapeutic ultrasound for chronic LBP.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and two trials registers to 7 January 2020. We checked the reference lists of eligible studies and relevant systematic reviews and performed forward citation searching.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on therapeutic ultrasound for chronic non-specific LBP. We compared ultrasound (either alone or in combination with another treatment) with placebo or other interventions for chronic LBP.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each trial and extracted the data. We performed a meta-analysis when sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity existed. We determined the certainty of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs involving a total of 1025 participants with chronic LBP. The included studies were carried out in secondary care settings in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Croatia, the UK, and the USA, and most applied therapeutic ultrasound in addition to another treatment, for six to 18 treatment sessions. The risk of bias was unclear in most studies. Eight studies (80%) had unclear or high risk of selection bias; no studies blinded care providers to the intervention; and only five studies (50%) blinded participants. There was a risk of selective reporting in eight studies (80%), and no studies adequately assessed compliance with the intervention. There was very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision, inconsistency, and limitations in design) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo for short-term pain improvement (mean difference (MD) -7.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.99 to 3.75; n = 121, 3 RCTs; 0-to-100-point visual analogue scale (VAS)). There was also moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference in the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain in the short term (risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.44; n = 225, 1 RCT). There was low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision and limitations in design) that therapeutic ultrasound has a small effect on back-specific function compared with placebo in the short term (standardised mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.07 (MD -1.07, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.26; Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire); n = 325; 4 RCTs), but this effect does not appear to be clinically important. There was moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo on well-being (MD -2.71, 95% CI -9.85 to 4.44; n = 267, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)). Two studies (n = 486) reported on overall improvement and satisfaction between groups, and both reported little to no difference between groups (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). One study (n = 225) reported on adverse events and did not identify any adverse events related to the intervention (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). No study reported on disability for this comparison. We do not know whether therapeutic ultrasound in addition to exercise results in better outcomes than exercise alone because the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low (downgraded for imprecision and serious limitations in design). The estimate effect for pain was in favour of the ultrasound plus exercise group (MD -21.1, 95% CI -27.6 to -14.5; n = 70, 2 RCTs; 0-to-100-point VAS) at short term. Regarding back-specific function (MD - 0.41, 95% CI -3.14 to 2.32; n = 79, 2 RCTs; Oswestry Disability Questionnaire) and well-being (MD -2.50, 95% CI -9.53 to 4.53; n = 79, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the SF-36), there was little to no difference between groups at short term. No studies reported on the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain, patient satisfaction, disability, or adverse events for this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence from this systematic review is uncertain regarding the effect of therapeutic ultrasound on pain in individuals with chronic non-specific LBP. Whilst there is some evidence that therapeutic ultrasound may have a small effect on improving low back function in the short term compared to placebo, the certainty of evidence is very low. The true effect is likely to be substantially different. There are few high-quality randomised trials, and the available trials were very small. The current evidence does not support the use of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic LBP.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Chronic Pain; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 32623724
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009169.pub3 -
Trials Jan 2020Periodontal diseases are regarded as the most common diseases of mankind. The prevalence rate of periodontal disease assumes a clear growth tendency, increasing by 57.3%...
Clinical evaluation of ultrasonic subgingival debridement versus ultrasonic subgingival scaling combined with manual root planing in the treatment of periodontitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
BACKGROUND
Periodontal diseases are regarded as the most common diseases of mankind. The prevalence rate of periodontal disease assumes a clear growth tendency, increasing by 57.3% from 1990 to 2010. Thereby, effective periodontal therapy is still a long-term task and a difficult problem. The goals of periodontal therapy are to eliminate the infectious and inflammatory processes of periodontal diseases. Root planing, in order to eliminate the "infected cementum," has been an important step in the treatment of periodontitis since the 1970s. However, along with the understanding of the effects of endotoxin on the root surface, the necessity of manual root planing has been gradually queried. Ultrasonic instruments, which are more recent innovations, would not remove the cementum excessively, and are also more time-saving and labor-saving compared to using hand instruments. Hence, an increasing number of dentists prefer to do scaling with ultrasonic instruments only. However, the necessity of root planing remains emphasized in the international mainstream views of periodontal mechanical treatment. Therefore, this study is devoted to compare the clinical effect of ultrasonic subgingival debridement and ultrasonic subgingival scaling combined with manual root planing, which takes the implementation of root planing as the only variable and is more in line with the current clinical situation, thus hoping to provide some valuable reference to dentists.
METHODS/DESIGN
Forty adult patients who fit the inclusion criteria are being recruited from the Peking University Hospital of Stomatology (Beijing, China). By means of randomization tables, one quadrant of the upper and lower teeth is the test group and the other is the control group. Test group: ultrasonic subgingival scaling combined with manual root planing.
CONTROL GROUP
ultrasonic subgingival debridement. In a 24-week follow-up period, plaque index, probing depth, clinical attachment loss, bleeding index, furcation involvement, mobility, and patient-reported outcome (Visual Analog Scale for pain and sensitivity) will be observed and documented.
DISCUSSION
This study evaluates the effectiveness of ultrasonic subgingival scaling combined with manual root planing and ultrasonic subgingival debridement alone in the nonsurgical treatment of periodontitis with a split-mouth design after 1, 3 and 6 months. The result of the trial should potentially contribute to an advanced treatment strategy for periodontitis with an ideal clinical outcome.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ID: ChiCTR1800017122. Registered on 12 July 2018.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Dental Scaling; Humans; Periodontal Debridement; Periodontitis; Root Planing; Ultrasonic Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31992331
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-4031-y -
Pain Research & Management 2019Studies regarding the combination of ultrasound and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) are rarely reported. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Efficacy and Safety of a Stimulator Using Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Combined with Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in Patients with Painful Knee Osteoarthritis.
OBJECTIVE
Studies regarding the combination of ultrasound and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) are rarely reported. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the efficacy and safety of a stimulator using low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) combined with TENS in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis (OA). We evaluated the effectiveness of this therapy against pain, physical function, and cartilage regeneration. Moreover, we aim to prove the superiority of the effects of LIPUS combined with TENS therapy compared with only TENS therapy.
METHODS
Of the 40 included patients, aged 45-85 years with painful knee OA, 20 patients received only TENS therapy and 20 patients received LIPUS combined with TENS therapy for 8 weeks (a total of more than 80 treatment sessions). We evaluated visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index, MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), and femoral articular cartilage (FAC) thickness. The evaluation was performed at three visits: visit 1 (V1, pretreatment, within 28 days after screening), visit 2 (V2, posttreatment period 1, ±3 days after treatment), and visit 3 (V3, posttreatment period 2, 21 ± 3 days after treatment).
RESULTS
We expected that LIPUS combined with TENS therapy would be superior to only TENS therapy. However, there was no significant difference between the two therapies. In the within-group comparison, both treatments (only TENS therapy and LIPUS with TENS therapy) demonstrated statistical differences from baseline values for pain and physical function outcomes. FAC thickness showed no significant differences after treatment in both groups.
CONCLUSION
The effects of a stimulator using LIPUS with TENS on pain relief and functional improvement were not superior to the only TENS therapy. Cartilage regeneration, which was expected as an additional benefit of LIPUS, was also not significantly evident. Therefore, further investigation is warranted to determine whether the combination therapy is beneficial. This trial is registered with KCT0003883.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Combined Modality Therapy; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Ontario; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Management; Single-Blind Method; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonic Therapy; Ultrasonic Waves
PubMed: 31316682
DOI: 10.1155/2019/7964897