Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for wound management: a comprehensive systematic review of clinical evidence, modalities and mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Chronic wounds – such as diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, pressure ulcers and burns – remain a significant burden on patients and healthcare systems worldwide. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has emerged as a promising non-invasive intervention capable of accelerating wound healing through stimulation of angiogenesis, modulation of inflammation and promotion of tissue regeneration. This systematic review synthesizes findings from 47 clinical studies published between 2005 and 2025, encompassing all major ESWT modalities – electrohydraulic, electromagnetic, piezoelectric, and radial – as well as 32 previously published reviews. Across diverse wound types and clinical settings, ESWT consistently led to improved healing outcomes. Randomized controlled trials demonstrated statistically significant reductions in wound size, faster re-epithelialization, enhanced perfusion, and increased rates of complete closure. These benefits were observed across all modalities, with no consistent superiority of one over another. Radial ESWT, often perceived as less potent because of its physical properties, performed comparably to focused modalities (electrohydraulic, electromagnetic and piezoelectric) in well-designed studies – particularly when treatment parameters were optimized. A central and unifying conclusion emerges from this broad evidence base: the clinical effectiveness of ESWT is less dependent on the specific device or ESWT modality and more contingent on the delivery of adequate energy to the wound tissue. Studies that carefully tailored energy flux density, frequency, impulse count and session frequency to the wound characteristics consistently reported better outcomes, regardless of ESWT type. In essence, while the technical generation of extracorporeal shock waves differs, their therapeutic impact converges when appropriately dosed. This finding underscores the need to shift focus from modality comparisons to treatment precision. Going forward, clinical success with ESWT will hinge on the thoughtful calibration of energy delivery, making it a flexible and effective tool across wound types and care settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".