Citations

Objectives While extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) may be an efficacious adjunctive treatment option for musculoskeletal injuries, current research is limited by significant heterogeneity within treatment protocols. This study aims to establish international expert consensus recommendations on ESWT terminology, parameters, procedural considerations, contraindications and side effects in the application of ESWT to sports injuries. Methods A systematic literature search was performed on the use of ESWT for musculoskeletal and sports medicine injuries to identify potential panellists, followed by the development of a steering committee-led questionnaire. A three-stage, modified Delphi questionnaire was provided to a panel of 41 international clinical and research experts across 13 countries. Panellists had the opportunity to suggest edits to existing statements or recommend additional statements in Round 1. Consensus was defined as≥75% agreement. Results All 41 panellists completed Rounds 1, 2 and 3. Consensus was reached on 69/118 statements (58.5%), including recommendations on terminology and fundamental concepts, indications for use, procedural aspects for tendinopathy and bone pathologies, treatment correlations with imaging, periprocedural and postprocedural considerations, absolute and relative contraindications and potential side effects. Of the 49 statements that did not reach consensus, 17/49 (34.7%) were related to procedural aspects of bone pathology. Conclusion This international panel presents recommendations on ESWT terminology, indications and treatment considerations to guide ESWT use and decision-making by sports medicine clinicians. While our panel supported the use of ESWT in the treatment of bone pathologies, certain procedural aspects of ESWT specific to these injuries did not reach consensus and require further investigation.

Purpose A major concern with sublobar resection (SR) for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is high local recurrence (LR). Adjuvant brachytherapy may reduce LR This multicenter randomized trial compares SR to SR with brachytherapy (SRB). Patients and Methods High-risk operable patients with NSCLC ≤ 3 cm were randomly assigned to SR or SRB. The primary end point was time to LR, where LR included recurrence at the staple line (local progression), in the primary tumor lobe away from the staple line, and in ipsilateral hilar nodes. The trial was designed to have a 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.315 in favor of SRB, using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.05 with a sample size of 100 eligible patients in each arm. Results Two hundred twenty-four patients were randomly assigned; 222 patients were evaluable for intent-to-treat analysis. Median age was 71 years (range, 49 to 87 years). No differences were found in baseline characteristics. Median follow-up time was 4.38 years (range, 0.04 to 5.59 years). There was no difference in time to LR (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.98; log-rank P = .98) or in the types of LR. Local progression occurred in only 17 (7.7%) of 222 patients. In patients with potentially compromised margins (margin < 1 cm, margin-to-tumor ratio < 1, positive staple line cytology, wedge resection, nodule size > 2.0 cm), SRB did not reduce LR, although trends favored the SRB arm. This was most marked in 14 patients with positive staple line cytology (HR, 0.22; P = .24). Three-year overall survival rates were similar for patients in the SR (71%) and SRB (71%) arms (P = .97). Conclusion Brachytherapy did not reduce LR after SR. This finding may have been related to closer attention to parenchymal margins by surgeons participating in this study.