Objective: To determine the actual costs of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in patients with tendinitis of the supraspinatus muscle.

Methods: A comparison of the costs of surgical treatment versus the costs for ESWT was made. The total accrued costs were determined 12 weeks after intervention, using a sample group of 60 patients with calcifying or noncalcifying tendinitis of the supraspinatus muscle.

Results: The costs per case ranged from EUR 2,700 to EUR 4,300 per patient for ESWT and from EUR 13,400 to EUR 23,450 for surgical treatment, dependent on the method of calculation. Approximately 65% of the per-patient cost is attributable to productivity losses in the workplace.

Conclusions: In comparable short-term results, costs for operative treatment are 5–7 times higher than for ESWT. The greater trauma caused by an operative procedure leads to patients being off work for a longer period and thus a correspondingly higher social economic burden.

Objective: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) as an emerging technology in orthopedics has been assessed in Austria with the objective to establish a scientific basis for pending and pressing health policy decisions. Despite encouraging results within some indications and the promising prospect of a noninvasive treatment for some orthopedic diseases, it seemed crucial to assess this new field of application in the light of evidence-based standards, without forgetting the reality of healthcare decisions. This article presents the results of the abovementioned assessment in the context of the policy-making process in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

Methods: The study is based on an overview of the already existing reviews on the effectiveness of ESWT as carried out by different actors (health insurances and orthopedists), and on an overview of additional literature covering all relevant aspects (mode of action, recommendations, economic estimates). Orthopedic societies, several institutions involved in health technology assessment, and health insurance agencies were contacted in search of further relevant literature, ongoing studies, and assessments.

Results: Until now, clear evidence has not been available on the effectiveness of ESWT in four currently recommended indications (tendinosis calcarea of the shoulder, epicondylopathia humeri radialis, calcaneal spur, and pseudarthrosis), although a substantial body of literature has been produced. Despite encouraging results in some indications, the lack of coherent therapy schemes and the poor quality in the design of clinical studies has been serious enough to hinder the drawing of reasonable conclusions.

Conclusions: Due to the rapid diffusion of ESWT and the pressure on reimbursement agencies to prove the ineffectiveness of ESWT, the policy option of a pragmatic approach is recommended to controll the diffusion of an uncertain health technology, alongside active research that would allow a more comprehensive appraisal of this potentially interesting treatment strategy in orthopedics.