The effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy to reduce lower limb spasticity in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy (ESWT) to reduce lower limb spasticity in adult stroke survivors.

Data Sources: A systematic review of Medline/Pubmed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PEDro database, REHABDATA, Scielo, Scopus, Web of Science, Trip Database, and Epistemonikos from 1980 to December 2018 was carried out.

Review Methods: The bibliography was screened to identify clinical trials (controlled and before-after) that used ESWT to reduce spasticity in stroke survivors. Two reviewers independently screened references, selected relevant studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias by PEDro scale. The primary outcome was spasticity.

Results: A total of 12 studies (278 participants) were included (5 randomized controlled trials, 1 controlled trial, and 6 before-after studies). A meta-analysis was performed by randomized controlled trials. A beneficial effect on spasticity was found. The mean difference (MD) was 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.86 and also in subgroup analysis (short, medium, and long term). The MD for range of motion was 1.81; CI −0.20 to 3.82 and for lower limb function the standard mean difference (SMD) was 0.34; 95% CI −0.09 to 0.77. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated a better beneficial effect for myotendinous junction. MD was 1.5; 95% CI −2.44 to 5.44 at long-term (9 weeks).

Conclusion: The ESWT (radial/focused) would be a good non-invasive rehabilitation strategy in chronic stroke survivors to reduce lower limb spasticity, increase ankle range of motion, and improve lower limb function. It does not show any adverse events and it is a safe and effective method.

KEYWORDS:

• Stroke
• hemiparesis
• hemiplegia
• extracorporeal shock wave therapy
• ESWT
• spasticity
• hypertonia

Acknowledgments

R.C.V and A.G.R contributed to initiating and designing the review; analysis and interpretation of data; writing the paper and making amendments to draft articles following review; final approval of version to be published. A.P.B; P.S. LL and J.C.S contributed to analysis and interpreting the data; reviewing draft article critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published. G.U.C contributed in methods, statistical analysis, and Cochrane handbook interpretation. J. O. S. contributed in data analysis. Finally, L.G.R. and A. M. E. contributed to English revision language.

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this review.