What is the difference between focused shock wave (FSW) and radial pressure wave (RPW) therapy?

Shock wave therapy is not a new modality; in its modern electronic form it has been around since the early 1980s, where it was first shown to have beneficial effects on treating kidney and biliary stones, and later on bone and wound healing.

However, despite now being an established medical intervention, questions still persist around the specifics of shock wave therapy. This article explains the difference between focused shock wave (F-SW) and radial pressure wave (RPW) therapy.

What are shock waves?

A shock wave is defined as a moving sound source travelling at more than the speed of sound. A stationary sound wave emits acoustic pressure waves that are evenly distributed in all directions. However, when the sound source is moving, the sound waves in front are compressed, and if the source moves faster than the speed of sound, the compressed waves overlap and create a shock wave, which is heard as a sonic boom.

It was noted that shock waves travel much better through water than they do through air, and that they could affect the body on a cellular level, thereby stimulating its intrinsic healing mechanism. This led to efforts to harness this phenomenon for medical applications, and the resulting technology became commonly known as shock wave therapy.

A brief history of shock wave therapy

Shock wave therapy as we know it first came into practical use in the 1980s, in the form of focused shock wave (F-SW). As with the emergence of any new intervention, there was immediately a great deal of interest – and hype – surrounding it.

Researchers began conducting clinical trials, but with no real guidelines on parameters, results were conflicting. At the same time, therapists were treating through trial and error, with outcomes ranging from very good to poor. This led to a drop in interest during the 1990s, with practitioners becoming disillusioned with F-SW, due also in part to the relative high cost of the devices.

However, with the advent of modified modalities, better research, and the technology to study the therapeutic effects on a molecular level, interest in shock wave therapy was rekindled around the end of the 1990s. Manufacturers began building more affordable clinic-based F-SW devices, and therapists became better at incorporating shock wave therapy into their treatments, all of which helped lead to better outcomes for patients.

Then, towards the end of the 1990s, a new technology emerged: radial pressure wave (RPW) therapy. Just as F-SW machines were becoming more affordable, RPW devices turned out to be even cheaper to produce and answered the demand from clinicians for a shock wave technology that could be used to treat on a more superficial level over larger areas.

Now shock wave therapy is an accepted and valued intervention that generates positive outcomes, supported by a wide range of clinical studies, and with far more affordable devices available to practitioners.

The differences between focus shock wave and radial pressure wave therapy

While focused shock wave (F-SW) therapy and radial pressure wave (RPW) therapy are often referred to together as ‘shock wave’, or extracorporeal shock wave therapy, only one is truly worthy of the definition.

F-SW delivers maximum energy at a focal point in the tissue at a depth of between 4-6cm, though some devices can achieve therapeutic energy values down to 12cm. Conversely, RPW delivers maximum energy at the surface of the skin, which then travels radially into the body up to a depth of 5-6cm. If we look at the physical properties of the two interventions, we can see they are completely different (Fig. 1).

Firstly, a focused shock wave will produce a pressure peak in the range of 10-100 Mega-Pascals (MPa), compared to the positive peak pressure of 0.1-1 MPa for a radial pressure wave – 100 times the amount of energy. Furthermore, the time taken for a focused shock wave to reach that peak, as well as its overall pulse duration, is far shorter than that of an RPW.

Therefore, unlike F-SW, a radial pressure wave is not a ‘true’ shock wave.

Additionally, while both technologies involve the conversion of electrical energy into mechanical energy, the ways in which focused shock waves and radial pressure waves are generated and delivered are also different.

F-SW machines generate shock waves using either electrohydraulic, electromagnetic, or piezoelectric technology. The shock waves are generated in water contained in a standoff attached to a handheld applicator. These waves are then focused through a lens and transmitted into the tissue.

Most RPW machines generate radial pressure waves using either oil or air compressors. During use, the compressed air is released via a valve into the barrel of a hand-held applicator which contains a small projectile. As the valve opens and closes very quickly, the projectile is driven by the compressed air into a transmitter at the end of the applicator, where the kinetic energy is converted into acoustic shock waves.

To learn more about the effects and applications of shock wave therapy:

Treating low back pain with electrotherapy

Among the many impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, one of the least publicised is that of low back pain. Far more of us are currently working from home, often without the necessary ergonomic support of chairs and desks designed to prevent back problems, and as a result, physiotherapists are seeing a growing number of patients presenting with low back pain.

One way of treating low back pain is with electrotherapy. The practice takes advantage of the high excitability of nerve fibres, stimulating them with electrical pulses to achieve a number of therapeutic effects. As well as pain relief, this includes stimulation to help strengthen muscles, meaning it can be used to address both the symptoms and causes of low back pain.

Treating the SYMPTOMS of low back pain with electrotherapy

Most acute low back pain is a result of injury to the muscles, ligaments, joints, or discs. The body’s reaction to injury is to instigate an inflammatory healing response, which can cause severe pain.

TENS (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation) uses electrical pulses to provide pain relief by blocking pain signals from reaching the brain. High frequency (HF) TENS, or sensory stimulation, uses pulses of 80-100 Hz and works via the gate control mechanism, inhibiting the transmission of pain signals to the brain while producing a pleasant tingling sensation. As a result, HF TENS is effective for providing patients with relief from the symptoms of lumbar pain.1

However, rather than just treat the cause of the pain, it’s important to also address the cause of the injury. Thankfully, electrostimulation also has an answer for this.

Treating the CAUSES of low back pain with electrotherapy

Sitting slumped over a desk while you work puts increased strain on the muscles and ligaments in your back, which can then lead to injury and low back pain. To address the cause of posture-related low back pain, we need to restore balance between the trunk flexors and extensors and strengthen our paraspinal and abdominal muscles to improve spinal stability and help us sit up straight. This is where NMES can help.2,3

NMES (Neuro Muscular Electrical Stimulation) uses electrical pulses to produce muscle contractions, mirroring the impulse sent from the brain. NMES can be used as a standalone treatment, but is most effective when used in combination with voluntary exercise such as proprioceptive or functional rehabilitation.

By safely controlling the contractions, the muscles can be made to exert themselves much more than the patient would be capable of voluntarily, and without placing additional stress on joints. Additionally, NMES can help the patient to recruit the deep lumbar stabilizers.3,4 This allows patients to effectively and safely strengthen their trunk muscles during exercise, thereby helping to address the causes of low back pain.2,3

However, if symptoms remain, functional rehabilitation for low back pain can still be carried out by combining NMES and TENS in a single treatment. One device with this function is Chattanooga’s Intelect Mobile.2

Intelect Mobile 2 – the next generation in electrotherapy

Intelect Mobile 2 is an innovative device designed to provide clinicians with everything they need for effective electrotherapy treatment, and comes in three different configurations, STIM, ULTRASOUND, and COMBO.

All three options include an intuitive touchscreen user interface, a library of suggested protocols, and Bluetooth connectivity for easy software updates. And as the name suggests, the device is truly mobile, enabling it to be easily carried or mounted on a wheeled cart.

Intelect Mobile 2 STIM and COMBO provide 2-channel electrotherapy with over 20 different waveforms, offering therapists multiple treatment options. For instance, when treating a patient with low back pain, Channel 1 can be used to deliver TENS treatment for pain relief, while Channel 2 provides muscle stimulation to support functional rehabilitation exercises. Or therapeutic ultrasound can be used as an adjunct pain-relieving modality.5

Altogether, Intelect Mobile 2 is an excellent option for therapists interested in using electrostimulation for treating not only low back pain, but also a range of other neuromuscular conditions.

References

  1. Jauregui JJ, Cherian JJ, Gwam CU, Chughtai M, Mistry JB, Elmallah RK, Harwin SF, Bhave A, Mont MA. A Meta-Analysis of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain. Surg Technol Int. 2016 Apr;28:296-302.
  2. Durmus D, Akyol Y, Alayli G, Tander B, Zahiroglu Y, Canturk F. Effects of electrical stimulation program on trunk muscle strength, functional capacity, quality of life, and depression in the patients with low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Rheumatol Int. 2009 Jun;29(8):947-54.
  3. Baek SO, Cho HK, Kim SY, Jones R, Cho YW, Ahn SH. Changes in deep lumbar stabilizing muscle thickness by transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation in patients with low back pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2017;30(1):121-127.
  4. Coghlan S, Crowe L, McCarthypersson U, Minogue C, Caulfield B. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation training results in enhanced activation of spinal stabilizing muscles during spinal loading and improvements in pain ratings. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:7622-5.
  5. Goren A, Yildiz N, Topuz O, Findikoglu G, Ardic F. Efficacy of exercise and ultrasound in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2010 Jul;24(7):623-31.