header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Hip

GREATER TROCHANTERIC PAIN SYNDROME: FOCUSED EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCKWAVE THERAPY VERSUS CORTICOSTEROID INJECTION: A RANDOMIZED TRIAL

The British Hip Society (BHS) Meeting, Nottingham, England, 27 February – 1 March 2019.



Abstract

Background

Greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) is a common problem affecting 10–25% of the population. Physiotherapy, anti-inflammatories, corticosteroid injections and surgery have all been described in the management of GTPS, all with limited, temporal success. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) has been proposed as a potential management option for this difficult presentation.

Method

We ran a prospective, 2 arm, single blinded, randomised control trial comparing focused shockwave therapy to an ultrasound guided corticosteroid injection. The primary outcome measure was the visual analogue pain score. Secondary outcome measures included the Harris hip score and Trendelenburg test for function; the SF-36 for quality of life (QoL); and a Likert scale question for a 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. Baseline scores were equal between the groups.

At 3 months, pain, function and QoL scores had improved in both groups. The Trendelenburg test was significantly improved in the ESWT group with 80% patients being negative compared to 80% positive at baseline (p<0.001).

At 12 months, the improvement in Trendelenburg test was maintained in the ESWT group, but the injection group had reverted to baseline. Across all outcomes, the ESWT group had significantly improved scores compared to the injection group; VAS 3.71 versus 5.50 (p=0.007, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 3.08), HHS 69.7 vs 57.5 (p=0.002, 95% confidence interval −20.0to −4.6) and SF-36 52.4 vs 47.7 (p=0.048, 95% confidence interval −9.31 to −0.04).

Conclusions

We have shown focused ESWT is an effective treatment for patients with GTPS. We hope to advocate ESWT as an effective non-invasive treatment modality for this challenging patient population.


Email: