Table 3.
The clinical outcome before and after shock wave treatment.
| Before ESWT | After ESWT | P value (II) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| VAS | |||
| LPFH group (n = 376 hips) |
4.5 ± 2.4 | 0.9 ± 1.3 | <0.001 |
| Non-LPFH group (n = 152 hips) |
7.8 ± 3.6 | 1.2 ± 1.4 | <0.001 |
| P value (I) | 0.006 | 0.523 | |
| HHS | |||
| LPFH group (n = 376 hips) |
83.2 ± 11.3 | 93.8 ± 10.4 | 0.021 |
| Non-LPFH group (n = 152 hips) |
62.9 ± 12.8 | 88.9 ± 13.5 | <0.001 |
| P value (I) | 0.012 | 0.218 | |
|
| |||
| LPFH group (n = 376 hips) |
non-LPFH group (n = 152 hips) |
||
|
| |||
| Clinical outcomea | |||
| Improved | 86.2% (324/376) | 78.3% (119/152) | 0.037 |
| Unchanged | 13.3% (50/376) | 12.5% (19/152) | 0.109 |
| Worsened | 0.5% (2/376) | 9.2% (14/152) | <0.001 |
| P value (III) | <0.001 | ||
Note: ESWT: extracorporeal shockwave therapy; VAS: visual analogue scale; HHS: Harris hip score.
P value (I): comparison of data between LPFH group and non-LPFH group for pain score and Harris hip score.
P value (II): comparison of data before and after ESWT within the same group.
P value (III): comparison of data between LPFH group and non-LPFH group for clinical outcome.
aClinical outcome [17]: “improved” was defined when there were significant improvements in pain and function of the affected hip after treatment; “unchanged” was defined when there were very little or no changes after treatment; “worsened” was defined when more pain and less function were noted after treatment.