No effect of extracorporeal shockwave therapy on XXXX in jumping athletes during the competitive season: a randomized clinical trial.

@entity924 @entity7184 @entity158 @entity34
BACKGROUND: @entity924 is a common @entity7184 among jumping athletes. No evidence-based treatment guidelines exist. @entity34 ( @entity34 ) appears to be a promising treatment but its effectiveness has not been studied in athletes with @entity924 who have symptoms for 3 to 12 months and are still playing. PURPOSE: The TOPGAME study was created to determine the effectiveness of @entity34 on @entity158 , symptoms, and function in athletes with early symptomatic @entity924 who are still in training and competition. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Athletes playing volleyball, basketball, or handball with @entity924 for 3 to 12 months were randomized into the @entity34 or placebo group during the first half of the season. The @entity34 group received 3 @entity34 treatments while the placebo group received sham @entity34 . In-season follow-up measurements were 1, 12, and 22 weeks after treatment. The primary outcome was severity of @entity924 determined with the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Patella (VISA-P) questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures were @entity158 during activities of daily living and sports and after functional knee-loading tests rated on a visual analog scale and subjective improvement. Multilevel analyses were performed to determine differences between groups over time. RESULTS: Of the 127 symptomatic athletes invited to participate, 62 were eligible, gave consent, and were randomized into the @entity34 (n = 31) or placebo group (n = 31). Mean VISA-P scores before and 1, 12, and 22 weeks after treatment were 59.4 (  11.7), 66.8 (  16.2), 66.7 (  17.5), and 70.5 (  18.9) for the @entity34 group and 62.4 (  13.4), 66.3 (  19.0), 68.9 (  20.3), and 72.7 (  18.0) for the placebo group. For the VISA-P, there was a significant effect for time (P < .01) but no treatment   time interaction effect (P = .82). The same pattern was seen in visual analog scale @entity158 scores. One week after final treatment, significantly more athletes in the @entity34 group reported subjective improvement (65% vs 32%;   (2) = 6.46, P = .01). This was the only difference noted between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: @entity34 as a solitary treatment during the competitive season has no benefit over placebo treatment in the management of actively competing jumping athletes with @entity924 who have symptoms for less than 12 months.
