Background: There are no controlled studies testing the efficacy of various nonoperative strategies for treatment of greater trochanter pain syndrome. Hypothesis: The null hypothesis was that local corticosteroid injection, home training, and repetitive low-energy shock wave therapy produce equivalent outcomes 4 months from baseline. Study Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Two hundred twenty-nine patients with refractory unilateral greater trochanter pain syndrome were assigned sequentially to a home training program, a single local corticosteroid injection (25 mg prednisolone), or a repetitive low-energy radial shock wave treatment. Subjects underwent outcome assessments at baseline and at 1, 4, and 15 months. Primary outcome measures were degree of recovery, measured on a 6-point Likert scale (subjects with rating completely recovered or much improved were rated as treatment success), and severity of pain over the past week (0–10 points) at 4-month follow-up. Results: One month from baseline, results after corticosteroid injection (success rate, 75%; pain rating, 2.2 points) were significantly better than those after home training (7%; 5.9 points) or shock wave therapy (13%; 5.6 points). Regarding treatment success at 4 months, radial shock wave therapy led to significantly better results (68%; 3.1 points) than did home training (41%; 5.2 points) and corticosteroid injection (51%; 4.5 points). The null hypothesis was rejected. Fifteen months from baseline, radial shock wave therapy (74%; 2.4 points) and home training (80%; 2.7 points) were significantly more successful than was corticosteroid injection (48%; 5.3 points). Conclusion: The role of corticosteroid injection for greater trochanter pain syndrome needs to be reconsidered. Subjects should be properly informed about the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment options, including the economic burden. The significant short-term superiority of a single corticosteroid injection over home training and shock wave therapy declined after 1 month. Both corticosteroid injection and home training were significantly less successful than was shock wave therapy at 4-month follow-up. Corticosteroid injection was significantly less successful than was home training or shock wave therapy at 15-month follow-up.

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT) in the treatment of spasticity in patients with cerebral palsy. Methods: Fifteen patients with spastic cerebral palsy, 12 men and 3

Introduction: Acute type 3b injuries of the hamstring muscle complex (HMC) are prevalent in sports, often lead to prolonged recovery, and demonstrate a high recurrence. Conservative rehabilitation is standard, and adjunct therapies such as radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT) may offer additional benefits. Sources of data: This randomized controlled trial, with blinding of patients and assessors, included 36 semi-professional athletes with ultrasound-confirmed acute type 3b HMC injuries. Participants received either real or sham rESWT in combination with an 8-week structured rehabilitation program. The primary outcome was time to return to sport; secondary outcomes included post-treatment muscle strength, patient satisfaction, and re-injury rate. Areas of agreement: Progressive rehabilitation is effective for muscle injuries. rESWT is a safe, non-invasive modality with high therapeutic potential in musculoskeletal conditions. Areas of controversy: Questions remain regarding the ideal rESWT protocol for acute muscle injuries, including optimal dosing, frequency, and timing relative to injury onset. Growing points: The addition of rESWT resulted in a statistically significant reduction in return-to-sport time [25.4 ± 3.5 (mean ± SD) days with rESWT vs 28.3 ± 4.5 days with sham rESWT; P = .037]. In elite and semi-professional athletes, even modest reductions in downtime can carry meaningful performance and economic benefits. Furthermore, only the rESWT group avoided strength deficits in the previously injured leg, suggesting improved functional recovery. Areas timely for developing research: Future studies should explore the comparative effectiveness of individualized versus standardized rESWT protocols and investigate its broader applicability across sports disciplines and levels of play.