Abstract
Background:
Previous clinical studies have reported that extracorporeal shock wave (EPSW) monotherapy can effectively treat avascular necrosis of femoral head (ANFH). However, no systematic review has been conducted to assess its effectiveness and safety for patients with ANFH. Therefore, this study will systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of EPSW monotherapy for patients with ANFH.
Methods:
In this study, the following electronic databases will be searched from their inceptions to the present: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PUBMED, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. This study will include randomized controlled trials for assessing the effectiveness and safety of EPSW monotherapy for patients with ANFH. Two independent authors will perform study selection, data extraction, and methodology assessment. RevMan 5.3 software will be used for statistical analysis.
Results:
This systematic review will provide latest summary evidence of EPSW monotherapy for patients with ANFH through assessing the outcome measurements. The primary outcome is pain intensity, which can be measured by visual analog scale or relevant measurement tools. The secondary outcomes are functional status of attacked femoral head, as assessed by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, or other relevant scales; quality of life, as evaluated by The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, or related instruments; and adverse events.
Conclusion:
The results of this study may provide the latest evidence for assessing the effectiveness and safety of EPSW for the treatment of ANFH.
Dissemination and ethics:
This study does not require ethical approval, because no individual data will be involved in this systematic review. The findings of this study will be published through a peer-reviewed journal.
Systematic review registration:
PROSPERO CRD42019124665.
Keywords: avascular necrosis, effectiveness, extracorporeal shock wave, femoral head, safety, systematic review
1. Introduction
Avascular necrosis of femoral head (ANFH) is a very common progressive orthopedic disorder.[1–3] This condition often manifests as severe pain, limitation of lower limbs activity.[4–6] It mainly affects patients those aged between 20 to 50 years old.[7] Many factors are responsible for this disorder, such as diabetes, hypertension, vasculitis, pancreatitis, and so on.[8–13] Thus, effective managements for this disorder are very important and necessary. Otherwise, it may lead to poor quality of life in patients who suffer from this disorder.[14–16]
Extracorporeal shock wave (EPSW) has been reported to treat a variety of orthopedic disorders effectively, such as chronic rotator cuff tendonitis, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic plantar fasciitis, and ANFH, especially for ANFH.[17–19] Lots of clinical trials have reported that EPSW has been used for ANFH treatment, and has achieved a promising effectiveness.[20–28] However, up to present, no study systematically has investigated the effectiveness and safety of EPSW for ANFH. Therefore, this systematic review will assess the effectiveness and safety of EPSW for patients with ANFH.
2. Methods and analysis
2.1. Study selection criteria
2.1.1. Types of studies
Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and safety of EPSW for ANFH will be considered for inclusion in this study. The other studies, such as non-RCTs, non-controlled trials, non-clinical studies, and quasi-RCTs will be excluded in this study.
2.1.2. Types of participants
Patients with clinically diagnosed with ANFH will be fully considered for inclusion with any restrictions, such as race, age, and gender.
2.1.3. Types of treatments
In the experimental group, only EPSW monotherapy will be considered for inclusion. In the control group, any kinds of interventions can be used, except any forms of EPSW alone or combination.
2.1.4. Types of outcome measurements
The primary outcome is pain intensity. It can be measured by any pain instruments, such as visual analog scale.
The secondary outcomes are functional status of attacked femoral head, as measured by any relevant scales, such as Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; quality of life, as evaluated by any associated measurement tools, such as The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey; and any adverse events.
2.2. Search strategy
Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PUBMED, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database will be searched from their inceptions to the present without any language restrictions. Reference lists of relevant studies will also be searched to avoid missing any potential eligible RCTs. The search strategy for Cochrane Library has been developed in consultation with an experienced librarian and is shown in Table 1. This search strategy will also be adapted and applied to other databases.
Table 1.
Search strategy applied in Cochrane Library database.
2.3. Study selection
Two authors will independently scanning the title, or/and abstract initially. Full texts will be further read if insufficient information can be utilized for judgment by screening title and abstract only. All disagreements regarding study selection have arisen between 2 authors, and a third experienced author will help to solve them by discussion. This study has been reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)[29] and PRISMA-Protocol guidelines.[30,31] Additionally, a PRISMA flow chart will be utilized to provide transparency of number of studies with specific inclusion and exclusion at each stage.
2.4. Data extraction and management
Two authors will independently extract data according to the pre-designed data extraction sheet. The sheet includes the following information: title, first author, year of publication, country, funding information, setting, study design and methods (such as randomization, blinding, and concealment), sample size, dosage, treatment frequency, and duration, and all primary, secondary and other outcome measurements. If any divergences regarding the data extraction between 2 authors exist, a third experienced author will be consulted and settle them down through discussion.
2.5. Risk of bias assessment
Risk of bias assessment will be assessed by using Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review of Interventions. It comprises of 7 fields, and each field is categorized as a high risk of bias, unclear risk of bias, or low risk of bias. Two authors will independently conduct the risk of bias assessment. A third experienced author will act as an arbiter through discussion if any disagreements arise between 2 authors.
2.6. Statistical analysis
2.6.1. Treatment effect measurement
The risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) will be presented for dichotomous data, while the mean difference, or standardized mean difference and 95% CIs will be expressed for continuous data.
2.6.2. Heterogeneity evaluation
The test of I2 will be utilized to check the heterogeneity among included studies. There is reasonable heterogeneity among those included studies if I2 ≤50%. On the other hand, there is substantial heterogeneity among those include studies if I2 >50%.
2.6.3. Data synthesis
If acceptable heterogeneity will be detected, a fixed-effect model will be used to pool the data, and meta-analysis will be conducted. On the other hand, if substantial heterogeneity will be identified, a random-effect model will be used to pool the data. Meanwhile, subgroup analysis will be performed to detect any reasons that may cause significant heterogeneity. If there is acceptable heterogeneity after the subgroup analysis, meta-analysis will be conducted. Otherwise, there is still substantial heterogeneity after the subgroup analysis, meta-analysis will not be conducted, and a narrative description will be elaborated instead.
2.6.4. Subgroup analysis
If heterogeneity is substantial among those included studies, subgroup analysis will be performed in accordance with different characteristics, treatments, controls, and outcome instruments.
2.6.5. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis will be carried out to check the robustness of pooled results by removing low quality of studies.
2.6.6. Reporting bias
Funnel plot and Egger test will be conducted to check any possible of the reporting bias if more than 10 eligible RCTs are included in this study.
3. Discussion
This systematic review is the first study to investigate the effectiveness and safety of EPSW monotherapy for patients with ANFH. Its findings will supply a detailed summary of the up-to-date evidence relevant of EPSW in pain relief, improvement of functional status of attacked femoral head, and enhancement of quality of life in patients with ANFH. This evidence may be helpful to clinician, patients, as well as the health policy makers regarding the use of EPSW for the treatment of ANFH.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: Hua-Yu Tang, Tian-Shu Wang.
Data curation: Hua-Yu Tang, Yu Zhao, Yu-Zhi Li.
Formal analysis: Yu Zhao, Tian-Shu Wang.
Funding acquisition: Hua-Yu Tang.
Investigation: Hua-Yu Tang, Tian-Shu Wang.
Methodology: Yu Zhao, Yu-Zhi Li.
Project administration: Hua-Yu Tang, Tian-Shu Wang.
Resources: Yu Zhao, Yu-Zhi Li, Tian-Shu Wang.
Software: Yu Zhao, Yu-Zhi Li.
Supervision: Tian-Shu Wang.
Visualization: Hua-Yu Tang, Yu-Zhi Li, Tian-Shu Wang.
Writing - Original Draft: Hua-Yu Tang, Yu Zhao, Yu-Zhi Li, Tian-Shu Wang.
Writing - Review & Editing: Hua-Yu Tang, Yu Zhao, Yu-Zhi Li, Tian-Shu Wang.
Footnotes
Abbreviations: ANFH = avascular necrosis of femoral head, CIs = confidence intervals, EPSW = extracorporeal shock wave, RCTs = randomized controlled trials.
This study was partly supported by the Heilongjiang Province's basic scientific research business fund research project (2017-KYYWF-0574); and Jiamusi University Science and Technology Key Project (12Z1201508, 12Z1201507). The supporter did not involve in the whole process of this study.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
- [1].Lüring C, Benignus C, Beckmann J. Joint-preserving operative treatment of avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Orthopade 2018;47:745–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Bohndorf K, Roth A. Imaging and classification of avascular femoral head necrosis. Orthopade 2018;47:729–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Zhang Q, Yang F, Chen Y, et al. Chinese herbal medicine formulas as adjuvant therapy for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e12196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Manenti G, Altobelli S, Pugliese L, et al. The role of imaging in diagnosis and management of femoral head avascular necrosis. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 2015;12suppl 1:31–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Bohndorf K, Beckmann J, Jäger M, et al. S3 guideline. part 1: diagnosis and differential diagnosis of non-traumatic adult femoral head necrosis. Z Orthop Unfall 2015;153:375–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Porubský P, Trč T, Havlas V, et al. Avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Cas Lek Cesk 2016;155:423–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].MacNeil JA, Francis A, El-Hawary R. A systematic review of rigid, locked, intramedullary nail insertion sites and avascular necrosis of the femoral head in the skeletally immature. J Pediatr Orthop 2011;31:377–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Moya-Angeler J, Gianakos AL, Villa JC, et al. Current concepts on osteonecrosis of the femoral head. World J Orthop 2015;6:590–601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Guerado E, Caso E. The physiopathology of avascular necrosis of the femoral head: an update. Injury 2016;47suppl 6:S16–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Herndon JH, Aufranc OE. Avascular necrosis of the femoral head in the adult. A review of its incidence in a variety of conditions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1972;86:43–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Abraham RR, Meyerhoff JO. Does vasculitis alone cause AVN? A review of literature. Rheumatol Int 2013;33:2671–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Jones JP., Jr Concepts of etiology and early pathogenesis of osteonecrosis. Instr Course Lect 1994;43:499–512. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Nevskaya T, Gamble MP, Pope JE. A meta-analysis of avascular necrosis in systemic lupus erythematosus: prevalence and risk factors. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2017;35:700–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Seki T, Hasegawa Y, Masui T, et al. Quality of life following femoral osteotomy and total hip arthroplasty for nontraumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Orthop Sci 2008;13:116–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Wang BL, Yue DB, Liu BX, et al. Quality of sexual life after total hip arthroplasty in male patients with osteonecrosis of femoral head. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014;24:1217–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Silva LL, Castelar M, Matos MA. Quality of life in pediatric patients with avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 2016;18:445–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].Yin M, Chen N, Huang Q, et al. New and accurate predictive model for the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in managing patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2017;98:2371–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Li W, Zhang SX, Yang Q, et al. Effect of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy for treating patients with chronic rotator cuff tendonitis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e7940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [19].Frassanito P, Cavalieri C, Maestri R, et al. Effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave Therapy and kinesio taping in calcific tendinopathy of the shoulder: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2018;54:333–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Xie K, Mao Y, Qu X, et al. High-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy for nontraumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Orthop Surg Res 2018;13:25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Vulpiani MC, Vetrano M, Trischitta D, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy in early osteonecrosis of the femoral head: prospective clinical study with long-term follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012;132:499–508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Wang CJ, Wang FS, Huang CC, et al. Treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: comparison of extracorporeal shock waves with core decompression and bone-grafting. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:2380–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].Chen S, Chen DJ. Clinical observation of combined with extracorporeal shock wave therapy after avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Chin Foreign Med Res 2017;15:180–1. [Google Scholar]
- [24].Wang S, Xing GY. Application of extracorporeal shock wave in the treatment of non-traumatic femoral head necrosis. Chin J Front Med (Electron Ed) 2014;6:8–11. [Google Scholar]
- [25].Liang WD, Xu WB, Li XF, et al. Clinical study of extracorporeal shock wave in the treatment of femoral head necrosis. Pract Chin Med Clin Clin 2012;12:28–9. [Google Scholar]
- [26].Wei LY, Meng H, Xu WJ. Effect of extracorporeal shock wave on early avascular necrosis of the femoral head and joint function. Chin J Pain Med 2011;17:255. [Google Scholar]
- [27].Zhai L, Sun N, Zhang BQ, et al. The treatment of traumatic talus ischemic necrosis by liquid-electric extracorporeal shock wave. J Clin Rehabilit Tissue Eng Res 2010;14:3135–8. [Google Scholar]
- [28].Kong FS, Qin SG, Li JJ, et al. Therapeutic effect of extracorporeal shock wave on avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Chin J Rehabilit Med 2009;24:846–8. [Google Scholar]
- [29].Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1006–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [30].Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [31].Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;349:g7647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]