ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare the effects and outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).MethodsOf the 78 patients recruited for the study, 61 patients met the inclusion criteria. The enrolled patients were randomly divided into two groups: the ESWT group and the HA group. The ESWT group underwent 3 sessions of 1,000 shockwave pulses performed on the affected knee with the dosage adjusted to 0.05 mJ/mm2 energy. The HA group was administered intra-articular HA once a week for 3 weeks with a 1-week interval between each treatment. The results were measured with the visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lequesne index, 40-m fast-paced walk test, and stair-climb test (SCT). A baseline for each test was measured before treatment and then the effects of the treatments were measured by each test at 1 and 3 months after treatment.ResultsIn both groups, the scores of the VAS, WOMAC, Lequesne index, 40-m fast-paced walk test, and SCT were significantly improved in a time-dependent manner (p<0.01). There were no statistically significant differences measured at 1 and 3 months after treatment between the two groups (p>0.05).ConclusionThe ESWT can be an alternative treatment to reduce pain and improve physical functions in patients with knee OA.

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on balance function in patients with chronic stroke.MethodsThirty participants with chronic stroke were enrolled in this study. High frequency (10 Hz) rTMS was delivered with butterfly-coil on trunk motor spot. Each patient received both real and sham rTMS in a random sequence. The rTMS cycles (real or sham) were composed of 10 sessions each, administered over two weeks, and separated by a 4-week washout period. Balance function was measured by Berg Balance Scale and computerized dynamic posturography to determine the effect of rTMS before and one day after the end of each treatment period, as well as at a 1-month follow-up.ResultsThe balance function was significantly improved after high frequency rTMS as compared with that after sham rTMS (p<0.05). There was no serious adverse effect in patients during the treatment period.ConclusionIn the chronic stroke patients, high frequency rTMS to the trunk motor area seems to be a helpful way to improve balance function without any specific adverse effects. Further studies are needed to identify the underlying mechanism and generate a detailed protocol.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of lower energy flux density (EFD) extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in the early stage of avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head.MethodsNineteen patients and 30 hips were enrolled. All subjects received 4 weekly sessions of ESWT, at different energy levels; group A (n=15; 1,000 shocks/session, EFD per shock 0.12 mJ/mm2) and group B (n=15; 1,000 shocks/session, EFD per shock 0.32 mJ/mm2). We measured pain by using the visual analog scale (VAS), and disability by using the Harris hip score, Hip dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), and the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). To determine the effect of the lower EFD ESWT, we assessed the VAS, Harris hip score, HOOS, WOMAC of the subjects before and at 1, 3, and 6 months.ResultsIn both groups, the VAS, Harris hip score, HOOS, and WOMAC scores improved over time (p<0.05).ConclusionLower EFD ESWT may be an effective method to improve the function and to relieve pain in the early stage of AVN.

We found that the original version of this paper contains an error in the descriptions of Fig. 4 (page 875).The correct descriptions of Fig. 4 are:At the baseline, the HOOSs in groups A and B were 44.21±8.89 and 42.22±8.91, respectively. After 1 month, the HOOSs in each the respective groups were 53.56±8.77 and 51.05±8.72. After 3 months, were 56.86±6.44 and 54.36±5.31, and after 6 months, were 61.88±4.91 and 59.92±3.28. Fig. 4 is shown below. The corrected

No abstract