体外冲击波疗法治疗骨科慢性劳损性疾病的心血管系统安全性观察

中国药物警戒 ›› 2016, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (9): 521-524.

体外冲击波疗法治疗骨科慢性劳损性疾病的心血管系统安全性观察

刘亚军, 蒋继乐, 田伟^*, 张隆浩, 张颖, 郭安忆

北京积水潭医院,北京 100035

收稿日期:2016-10-31 修回日期:2016-10-31 出版日期:2016-09-20 发布日期:2016-10-31
通讯作者: 田伟,男,博士,主任医师,脊柱外科。E-mail：tianweijst@vip.163.com
基金资助:
北京市科委首都特色临床应用研究项目（Z131107002213162）

Observation on Cardiovascular Safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy in Orthopedic Chronic Overuse Syndrome

LIU Ya-jun, JIANG Ji-le, TIAN Wei*, ZHANG Long-hao, ZHANG Yin, GUO An-yi

Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing 100035, China

Received:2016-10-31 Revised:2016-10-31 Online:2016-09-20 Published:2016-10-31

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的观察体外冲击波疗法治疗骨科慢性劳损性疾病过程中对于心血管系统安全性的影响及治疗效果。方法前瞻性纳入2015年8月~2016年3月间因骨科慢性劳损性疾病接受冲击波治疗的患者。选取其中初次治疗者,搜集术前诊断,分别测量治疗前中后的呼吸、心率、血压及氧饱和度等生理参数,记录疼痛视觉评分（Visual AnalogueScore,VAS）评分变化,对不同时间点参数的变化进行统计分析,并对伴高血压病患者进行亚组分析。结果共治疗628例患者,年龄范围为13~89岁平均（45.3±14.6）岁,其中高血压患者94例。所有患者治疗过程中VAS评分均明显升高,但心率、呼吸、血压及氧饱和度没有明显差异（P>0.05）;治疗前后VAS评分比较具有明显差异,由治疗前的6.34±1.98下降到治疗后的3.89（P=0.000）;未发现治疗中和治疗后心率、呼吸、血压及氧饱和度异常变化的个例病例。高血压亚组患者情况与所有患者相同。结论体外冲击波疗法对包括高血压患者在内的所有患者均不会明显增加心血管系统压力,能够显著缓解骨科慢性劳损性疾病的疼痛症状。

关键词: 体外冲击波疗法, 慢性劳损性疾病, 并发症, 心血管系统

Abstract: Objective To observe the cardiovascular safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in orthopedic chronic overuse syndrome. Methods Patients with chronic overuse syndrome in Orthopedic Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Center in Jishuitan Hospital between May 2015 and March 2016 were prospectively selected. Parameters including breath rate, heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation during therapy were documented in the patients’ first course of treatment. Visual Analogue Score (VAS) was also recorded. Data were collected and compared before, during and after treatment. Patients with hypertension were analyzed in a subgroup. Results A total of 628 patients were enrolled, with an average age of 45.3±14.6 years old (13~89), among which there were 94 patients with hypertension. There was an increase of VAS scores during therapy but no significant difference in heart rate, breath rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation (P>0.05), and there was significant reduction between VAS before and after treatment (6.34±1.98 and 3.89±1.69, respectively) (P=0.000). There was no case of abnormally changed breath rate, heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation. The results in hypertension subgroup were consistent with overall patients. Conclusion Extracorporeal shock wave therapy did not increase stress of cardiovascular system during therapy, even in patients with hypertension. It could relieve the pain of orthopedic chronic overuse syndrome significantly.

Key words: extracorporeal shock wave therapy, chronic overuse syndrome, complication, cardiovascular system

中图分类号:

R197.39

刘亚军, 蒋继乐, 田伟, 张隆浩, 张颖, 郭安忆. 体外冲击波疗法治疗骨科慢性劳损性疾病的心血管系统安全性观察[J]. 中国药物警戒, 2016, 13(9): 521-524.

LIU Ya-jun, JIANG Ji-le, TIAN Wei*, ZHANG Long-hao, ZHANG Yin, GUO An-yi. Observation on Cardiovascular Safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy in Orthopedic Chronic Overuse Syndrome[J]. Chinese Journal of Pharmacovigilance, 2016, 13(9): 521-524.

参考文献

[1] 中国研究型医院学会冲击波医学专业委员会. 骨肌疾病体外冲击波疗法专家共识[J]. 中国医学前沿杂志（电子版）, 2014, 6(6):170-177.
[2] Birnbaum K, Wirtz D C, Siebert C H, et al. Use of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT) in the treatment of non-unions.A review of the literature[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2002, 122(6):324-330.
[3] Koenig J, Jarczok M N, Ellis R J, et al. Heart rate variability and experimentally induced pain in healthy adults: a systematic review[J].Eur J Pain, 2014, 18(3): 301-314.
[4] Schmitz C, Csaszar N B, Milz S, et al. Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for orthopedic conditions: a systematic review on studies listed in the PEDro database[J]. Br Med Bull, 2015, 116:115-138.
[5] 周梁, 梁朝朝, 叶元平, 等. 体外冲击波碎石术后严重并发症的处理方法[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2014, 35(9): 691-694.
[6] Romeo P, Lavanga V, Pagani D, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy in musculoskeletal disorders: a review[J]. Med Princ Pract,2014, 23(1): 7-13.
[7] Cheng J H, Wang C J. Biological mechanism of shockwave in bone[J].Int J Surg, 2015, 24(Pt B): 143-146.
[8] Roos K G, Marshall S W. Definition and usage of the term "overuse injury" in the US high school and collegiate sport epidemiology literature: a systematic review[J]. Sports Med, 2014, 44(3):405-421.
[9] Verstraelen F U, In den Kleef N J, Jansen L, et al. High-energy versus low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy for calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: which is superior? A meta-analysis[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2014, 472(9): 2816-2825.
[10] Schofer M D, Hinrichs F, Peterlein C D, et al. High- versus low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy of rotator cuff tendinopathy: a prospective, randomised, controlled study[J]. Acta Orthop Belg,2009, 75(4): 452-458
[11] Gao F, Sun W, Li Z, et al. High-Energy Extracorporeal Shock Wave for Early Stage Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head: A Single-Center Case Series[J]. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med, 2015, 2015: 468090.
[12] Zhang X, Yan X, Wang C, et al. The dose-effect relationship in extracorporeal shock wave therapy: the optimal parameter for extracorporeal shock wave therapy[J]. J Surg Res, 2014, 186(1): 484-492.
[13] Rompe J D, Meurer A, Nafe B, et al. Repetitive low-energy shock wave application without local anesthesia is more efficient than repetitive low-energy shock wave application with local anesthesia in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis[J]. J Orthop Res, 2005,23(4): 931-941.