Romero, J. García

Background Current literature has shown benefit of radial pressure wave (RPW) and focused shockwave (FSW) for management of proximal hamstring tendinopathy (PHT), although there remains a lack of consensus on treatment parameters and optimal patient positioning. Purpose The purpose of this narrative review and clinical commentary is to report what has been described for patient positioning during treatment of PHT with RPW or FSW and propose an alternative side lying approach. Methods A search was conducted of MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE electronic databases for studies published from January 2005 to January 2026. Key search terms included proximal hamstring tendinopathy, shockwave therapy, extracorporeal shockwave treatment, radial pressure wave, hamstring tendinosis, hamstring tendinitis, and hamstring pain. Studies were included if they evaluated RPW or FSW for the treatment of PHT. Results Six manuscripts were identified for inclusion, two randomized controlled trials (RCT), two retrospective reviews, and two case reports; a total of 217 patients (145 female, 72 male) with PHT were treated with RPW and/or FSW. One RCT provided an in-depth description of patient positioning during shockwave treatment with the patient supine, with the hip and knee flexed, compared to other manuscripts detailing clinical focusing techniques only. One case report involving a para swimmer included a figure of treatment with the patient in a prone position. Improvement in patient reported outcomes with RPW and/or FSW was noted, with one RCT showing no differences between physiotherapy compared to RPW and FSW treatment. Conclusion RPW and FSW have some evidence regarding their benefits for treatment of PHT but controlled studies are limited and no consensus on treatment protocols or patient positioning during treatment have been determined. The authors’ preferred approach in treating PHT involves having the patient side lying with the hip and knee flexed to allow patient and clinician comfort while also creating compression of the proximal hamstring about the ischial tuberosity. It remains unclear how variance in patient positioning affects patient-reported outcomes. Future studies using RPW and FSW should include documentation of patient positioning when evaluating RPW and FSW efficacy. Level of Evidence 5

Objective: Orthobiologics are increasingly sought-after interventions in sports medicine for treatment of musculoskeletal injuries and conditions. Despite this trend, differences exist across sports medicine fellowship programs regarding foundational knowledge, educational curricula, and practical experience with orthobiologic therapies (eg, platelet-rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, microfragmented adipose tissue). This represents an important educational gap for those training in sports medicine fellowships. To address this gap, an educational toolkit was envisioned with the sports medicine fellowship director and trainee in mind. Data Sources: Collective observations from physician experts in sports medicine education established the variations in curricula and expertise of graduating fellows. A literature review was conducted to source English-language peer reviewed articles from the online PubMed database. The scope of this project did not include an independent systematic analysis or statistical assessments. Main Results: An educational toolkit consisting of 12 adaptable modules was developed, each with a suggested reading list from the published literature. The modules may be rearranged to support each program's learning schedule. The information and lessons contained herein may be valuable to all healthcare providers interested in the evidence-based application of orthobiologics and insightful interpretation of related research. Conclusions: By implementing an educational toolkit, sports medicine fellowships may improve the quality of education on orthobiologics. This is intended to improve the knowledge and skill set of fellowship graduates, thus promoting the scientific, responsible use of orthobiologic interventions.

Background: Ultrasound-guided percutaneous fasciotomy and debridement (USPFD) is a minimally invasive treatment for patients with plantar fasciopathy refractory to conservative management. Previous studies have shown clinical improvement with USPFD, but pain relief and patient satisfaction have not been demonstrated beyond 2 years. Methods: This retrospective case series included patients who underwent USPFD at a quaternary academic medical center between April 2013 and January 2018, with refractory plantar fasciopathy and at least 4 years’ follow-up. Patient outcomes were assessed through electronic surveys and telephone interviews. Primary outcome measures included mean changes in visual analog scale pain (VAS-Pain) scores and patient satisfaction via Likert scale. Secondary measures included VAS-Pain with the first 5 steps, VAS-Pain during daily weightbearing, and procedural complications. Results: Seventy unique procedures were identified among 62 patients. Follow-up data were obtained from 51 of 62 patients (82%) who responded to surveys or phone calls. This corresponded to 58 of 70 procedures (83%) at a mean postprocedure follow-up of 6.6 ± 1.4 years. Patients had a mean duration of symptoms of 2.1 ± 3.0 years prior to the procedure. Baseline VAS-Pain was 6.8 ± 2.2 and final follow-up VAS-Pain was 0.7 ± 1.1. At the last follow-up, patient-reported VAS-Pain with first 5 steps was 0.9 ± 1.6 and VAS-Pain with weightbearing through the day was 1.3 ± 1.8. Overall, 91% (53/58) of the procedures were considered successful, where patients responded they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” and 52 of 58 (90%) procedural responses indicated that based on the outcome, they would recommend the procedure to others. Final follow-up VAS-Pain, VAS-first 5 steps, and VAS-weightbearing, were all improved in the success vs failure groups ( P ≤ .002). No complications were reported. Conclusion: USPFD was associated with high patient satisfaction and durable pain relief for chronic plantar fasciopathy at an average follow-up of 6.6 ± 1.4 years.