2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2005.04.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Treatment of cutaneous calcinosis in CREST syndrome by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
33
0
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
33
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The biological mechanism of action after a shock-wave (ie, after the ultra-short physical stress and strain) is still unknown to large extent. It appears that the principle of action is so universal that a multitude of very different indications like musculoskeletal diseases (calcaneal spur, tennis-elbow, golf-arm, lime-shoulder) (Wang et al 2006), orthopedics (pseudarthrosis) (Siebert and Buch 1997), chronic skin lesions (ulcus cruris) and burnings (Sparsa et al 2005; Schaden et al 2006) respond positively to shock wave therapy. Biological reactions of liberation of different agents (measured by immunohistochemistry) such as VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor), eNOS (endothelial nitric oxide synthase) and PCNA (proliferating cell nuclear antigen) are reported (Wang et al 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The biological mechanism of action after a shock-wave (ie, after the ultra-short physical stress and strain) is still unknown to large extent. It appears that the principle of action is so universal that a multitude of very different indications like musculoskeletal diseases (calcaneal spur, tennis-elbow, golf-arm, lime-shoulder) (Wang et al 2006), orthopedics (pseudarthrosis) (Siebert and Buch 1997), chronic skin lesions (ulcus cruris) and burnings (Sparsa et al 2005; Schaden et al 2006) respond positively to shock wave therapy. Biological reactions of liberation of different agents (measured by immunohistochemistry) such as VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor), eNOS (endothelial nitric oxide synthase) and PCNA (proliferating cell nuclear antigen) are reported (Wang et al 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The principle of action, that ESW induces self-regenerating processes within the healthy tissue surrounding the focus of affliction, appears to be universal. A multitude of very different indications like musculoskeletal diseases (calcaneal spur, tennis-elbow, golf-arm, lime-shoulder; Wang et al 2006), orthopedics (pseudarthrosis; Siebert and Buch 1997), chronic skin lesions (ulcus cruris) and burnings (Sparsa et al 2005; Schaden et al 2006) respond positively to shock wave therapy. Shock waves are also effective as a means to increase local blood circulation and metabolism.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The number of isolated cases reported that were treated empirically and no organized trial has highlighted the absence of an effective and codified treatment for CC. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] The following agents have been prescribed: diltiazem, 11 aluminum hydroxide, 12 sodium thiosulfate, 13 colchicine, 14 edathamil, 15 intravenous immunoglobulins, 16 carbon-dioxide laser, 17 warfarin, 18 minocycline, 19 or bisphosphonates, 20-23 achieving variable efficacy and causing significant side effects. Excision of CC that are painful or a source of disability is sometimes proposed, but the topography (distal and periarticular site for SSC) and the extent of the lesions (CVI) can render surgical management difficult.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, treatment benefit lasted at least 2 years after the last ESWL session. 6 Currently, in dermatology, ESWL efficacy for the treatment of dermatomyositis or SSC has been reported only for isolated cases 8,9 but no objective evaluation of outcome (CC area, VAS pain score) was made. In addition, no systematic radiologic monitoring was conducted and the ESWL protocol (power used per CC, number of sessions) was not standardized.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation