Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Wound Management: Clinical Evidence, Energy Delivery Parameters and Mechanistic Insights—A Systematic Review
7 affiliations
- 1Department of Chiropractic Medicine, Mahanke Sports Performance & Fitness, Bakersfield, CA 93312, USA
- 2Extracorporeal Shock Wave Research Unit, Chair of Neuroanatomy, Institute of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich (LMU Munich), 80336 Munich, Germany
- 3Department of Family Medicine, University of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa, FL 33602, USA
- 4Department for Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Medical Park St. Hubertus, 83707 Bad Wiessee, Germany
- 5Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, University La Sapienza, 00189 Roma, Italy
- 6School of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Keele University Faculty of Medicine, Keele ST5 5BG, UK
- 7Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Mile End Hospital, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, UK
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Chronic wounds such as diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers and burns are a major health-care burden. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is a non-invasive treatment that promotes angiogenesis and tissue regeneration. This review synthesizes the clinical evidence for ESWT in wound management, and asks how contemporary reviews reflect it. Methods: PubMed and Ovid/Embase were searched from inception to 1 September 2026 according to PRISMA, regardless of wound type, study design or ESWT modality. Fifty-one clinical studies and 46 prior reviews were analyzed. Heterogeneity confined the primary synthesis to a qualitative one; an exploratory pooled analysis was performed for the one endpoint reported consistently enough to permit it. Results: None of the 46 previously published reviews covered the original evidence in its full breadth: each cited a median of 19.4% of the clinical studies available at its reference date (range 0–90.9%), and systematic reviews covered no more than narrative ones. Most studies reported improved healing across all four modalities. In seven controlled trials in diabetic foot ulcers reporting complete healing as events and denominators, the exploratory pooled risk ratio favored ESWT (1.51, 95% CI 1.22–1.87; I2 = 0%; 689 patients). Such data existed for three modalities only, resting on one trial for two, so modalities could not be compared. Conclusions: ESWT may be a useful adjunct in wound management, particularly for diabetic foot ulcers, although the evidence is heterogeneous and partly uncontrolled. Because no previous review reflected the evidence base as a whole, conclusions drawn from it should be read with caution. Head-to-head trials with matched physical dose are needed before any modality can be preferred.
Related
- Infectious Complications in Adults Receiving Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nosocomial and Bloodstream Infection, Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Clinical Outcomes.
- Changes in parent-rated attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom scores and sleep parameters during individualized multidisciplinary clinical management in children with comorbid obstructive sleep apnea: a prospective cohort study in Vietnam
- Clinical Outcomes and Complications of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) in Adult Patients With COVID-19 in Central and Eastern Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- Global perspectives on dietary management of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO): a systematic review of clinical guidelines, consensus statements and expert recommendations
- Digital, Mobile and Artificial Intelligence‐Supported Interventions for Pressure Injury Prevention and Management: A Systematic Review of Clinical, Workflow and Implementation Outcomes
BibTeX
@article{musolf2026extracorporeal,
title = {{Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Wound Management: Clinical Evidence, Energy Delivery Parameters and Mechanistic Insights—A Systematic Review}},
author = {Brent Musolf and Carmen Nussbaum-Krammer and Michael O’Neal and Tobias Wuerfel and Nicola Maffulli and Christoph Schmitz},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15218550},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8550},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Wound Management: Clinical Evidence, Energy Delivery Parameters and Mechanistic Insights—A Systematic Review
AU - Brent Musolf
AU - Carmen Nussbaum-Krammer
AU - Michael O’Neal
AU - Tobias Wuerfel
AU - Nicola Maffulli
AU - Christoph Schmitz
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/03
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15218550
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8550
AB - Background/Objectives: Chronic wounds such as diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers and burns are a major health-care burden. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is a non-invasive treatment that promotes angiogenesis and tissue regeneration. This review synthesizes the clinical evidence for ESWT in wound management, and asks how contemporary reviews reflect it. Methods: PubMed and Ovid/Embase were searched from inception to 1 September 2026 according to PRISMA, regardless of wound type, study design or ESWT modality. Fifty-one clinical studies and 46 prior reviews were analyzed. Heterogeneity confined the primary synthesis to a qualitative one; an exploratory pooled analysis was performed for the one endpoint reported consistently enough to permit it. Results: None of the 46 previously published reviews covered the original evidence in its full breadth: each cited a median of 19.4% of the clinical studies available at its reference date (range 0–90.9%), and systematic reviews covered no more than narrative ones. Most studies reported improved healing across all four modalities. In seven controlled trials in diabetic foot ulcers reporting complete healing as events and denominators, the exploratory pooled risk ratio favored ESWT (1.51, 95% CI 1.22–1.87; I2 = 0%; 689 patients). Such data existed for three modalities only, resting on one trial for two, so modalities could not be compared. Conclusions: ESWT may be a useful adjunct in wound management, particularly for diabetic foot ulcers, although the evidence is heterogeneous and partly uncontrolled. Because no previous review reflected the evidence base as a whole, conclusions drawn from it should be read with caution. Head-to-head trials with matched physical dose are needed before any modality can be preferred.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -