Skip to content
(931) 591-3740
Clarksville, TN

StemWave therapy, what it is registered for and what we will not claim for it

A focused acoustic wave device, new to Source Chiropractic in September 2026. Its registered intended use, where it fits in a plan here, its risks, the alternatives, and the questions to ask before it goes into yours.

CERVICALLUMBAR
The spinal column, neck to pelvis, no one region at issue

Source Chiropractic uses the StemWave device, a focused acoustic wave system, as an addition to care for selected muscle and joint complaints. It joined the practice in September 2026. This guide explains what the device is registered to do, where it fits in a plan at our Clarksville practice, what it is not used for, its risks, and the questions worth asking before you agree to it.

What is StemWave registered to do?

The manufacturer states that StemWave is registered with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a Class I therapeutic massager, intended for the temporary relief of minor muscle and joint aches and pains, and adds, in its own words, that FDA registration is not an FDA endorsement, approval, or clearance. That is the whole of the device's stated intended use, and it is the only use this page describes.

Class I is the lowest-risk of the FDA's three device classes, and most Class I devices are exempt from premarket review (FDA: classify your medical device). Registration means the manufacturer has listed the device with the FDA. It does not mean the FDA has reviewed evidence that the device is safe or effective for anything.

The manufacturer describes the device as delivering electrohydraulic, focused acoustic waves into tissue, and describes cellular effects it attributes to that mechanical input. Its own site notes that those mechanistic descriptions are not FDA-cleared indications and are not claims about diagnosing, treating, curing or preventing any condition. We repeat that here because it is the correct reading: a description of how a device works is not evidence of what it does for a patient.

You may see this kind of device called shockwave therapy. Published research uses the term extracorporeal shock wave therapy, or ESWT, for a family of devices that differ in how the wave is generated, whether it is focused, and how much energy is delivered. StemWave is one member of that family, and evidence about another member does not automatically apply to it.

Where does it fit at Source Chiropractic?

A Source Chiropractic doctor may add StemWave to a plan for muscle and joint complaints involving the shoulder, the low back, the heel and plantar fascia, the knee, the elbow, or the wrist and hand. It is an addition, not a plan on its own. A history and an examination come first, and the examination is what decides whether an acoustic wave device has anything to offer the finding in front of us.

A session is short. Gel is applied to the skin over the area and the applicator is moved across it while the device delivers pulses. Nothing is injected and no anesthetic is used. How many sessions, if any, are appropriate is decided after the examination and reviewed against your progress, not set in advance from a brochure. Ask what each session costs and how progress will be judged before agreeing to a series.

What is it not used for?

StemWave is not used here to diagnose anything, and it is not used in place of an evaluation when symptoms are new, worsening, or unexplained. It is not a treatment for fractures, infections, tumors, inflammatory arthritis, or any condition outside the musculoskeletal scope of a chiropractic physician. Those are referred.

Before the first session, tell the doctor if you are pregnant, take blood-thinning medication or have a bleeding disorder, have an implanted electronic device, have had a steroid injection in the area recently, or if the area has numbness, an open wound or a skin condition. The doctor needs each of those facts before deciding whether the device is appropriate for you, and the answer may be that it is not.

What are the risks?

Acoustic wave treatment is uncomfortable for many people while the pulses are delivered, and temporary redness, soreness, swelling or bruising over the treated area afterwards are the effects most often reported. A systematic review of 39 plantar fasciitis studies, covering roughly 6,400 treatment sessions, recorded pain during treatment and transient red skin as the two most common, with two complications in the whole series (see the research below). In a 2020 Cochrane review of 32 trials of shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease, adverse events were more frequent with treatment than with placebo, and the authors described the safety evidence as uncertain because so few events were recorded. Serious harms are rarely reported, and the trials were mostly too small to measure rare harms at all.

Two caveats belong next to that. First, those figures come from trials of ESWT devices, not from trials of StemWave, so they describe the family rather than this device. Second, a Class I registration tells you the device is on a list, not that its safety has been reviewed. Report anything that worries you during or after a session, and do not let an acoustic wave appointment delay evaluation of a new or worsening symptom.

What other options should I consider?

Options depend on the diagnosis, and for most of the complaints this device is used alongside, the best-supported first-line care is not a device at all.

  • Shoulder and rotator cuff pain. In a large 2021 trial, a single session of best-practice advice with home exercise did as well over a year as a course of supervised exercise, and injection offered no long-term benefit (see the research on shoulder pain). Activity and a graded loading plan are where care usually starts.
  • Plantar heel pain. Stretching, footwear and load management come first. The review below found that custom orthotics improved function more than shock wave therapy, and that platelet-rich plasma injection outperformed it for pain, at the cost of being a more involved procedure.
  • Low back pain. NICE's recommendations put continued activity, exercise and, when considered, manual therapy within an exercise-based plan ahead of passive treatments. The review below found shock wave therapy added to physical therapy did better than physical therapy alone for pain and function, from fourteen trials whose authors call for more high-quality trials before the finding is settled.

Laser therapy, dry needling and massage therapy are the other adjuncts offered here, each with its own page and its own limits. Medical care and physical therapy answer different needs, and referral is part of the plan when the finding is not ours.

What should I ask before booking?

  • What finding are we treating, and what improvement are we looking for?
  • Why add an acoustic wave device to the plan, and what would we do instead?
  • Which studies apply to this device, at this setting, for this problem?
  • What does each session cost, how many are proposed, and when will we review?
  • What will we do if it does not help, or makes things worse?

If we are not able to help you with your problem or are unable to reduce your pain levels, we will make sure to give you a recommendation to another experienced provider.

Contact the team to discuss availability and fees. The new-patient chiropractic offer has its own terms; ask about the cost of additional services before agreeing to them.

Follow the evidence

Research, with context.

Published sources behind the discussion. Read the findings alongside the limits; a study is not a diagnosis or a promise of a result.

  1. Systematic review 2020

    Shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease with or without calcification

    32 trials, 2,281 participants with rotator cuff disease, most with calcific deposits; the main comparison was shock wave therapy against placebo at three months.

    What it foundPain and function were slightly better with shock wave therapy than placebo, by less than the amount the authors considered clinically important. Adverse events were more frequent with treatment (41 of 156 versus 10 of 139 in five trials), with safety described as uncertain.

    What it cannot tell usEvery trial was susceptible to bias and none measured quality of life. The devices were extracorporeal or radial shock wave systems at varied doses; the result does not describe StemWave or any single device, dose or protocol.

    Publication details & citation

    Surace et al. Shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease with or without calcification. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008962.pub2.

    Read the publication record
  2. Systematic review & meta-analysis 2025

    Extracorporeal shock wave therapy shows comparative results with other modalities for the management of plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    15 randomized trials, 1,123 patients with plantar fasciitis, comparing shock wave therapy with placebo and six other conservative treatments.

    What it foundShock wave therapy outperformed placebo for pain and function. Platelet-rich plasma injection did better than shock wave therapy for both, and custom orthotics improved function more than shock wave therapy; other comparisons showed no significant difference.

    What it cannot tell usTrials published after 2013 only, with varied protocols and devices. The pooled result does not describe StemWave or any single device, and does not establish which device or dose produced it.

    Publication details & citation

    Tung et al. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy shows comparative results with other modalities for the management of plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Foot and Ankle Surgery. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2024.11.005.

    Read the publication record
  3. Systematic review & network meta-analysis 2026

    Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy combined with conventional physical therapy for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

    14 randomized trials of adults with chronic low-back pain, comparing shock wave therapy, conventional physical therapy, the two combined, and sham.

    What it foundThe combination of shock wave therapy and physical therapy ranked first for pain and function and did better than physical therapy alone. Shock wave therapy alone reduced pain more than sham but showed no significant effect on function.

    What it cannot tell usThe authors call for more high-quality trials before the finding is settled. Devices and doses varied across the trials; the result does not describe StemWave or any single device.

    Publication details & citation

    Qiao et al. Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy combined with conventional physical therapy for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Frontiers in Physiology. 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2026.1807929.

    Read the publication record
  4. Systematic review 2017

    Complications of extracorporeal shockwave therapy in plantar fasciitis: Systematic review

    39 studies, 2,493 patients with plantar fasciitis, receiving roughly 6,400 shock wave treatment sessions across a wide range of energy settings.

    What it foundTwo complications were recorded in the whole series. Pain during treatment and transient red skin afterwards were the most common side effects; transient pain, swelling, bruising, petechiae, altered sensation and headache were also reported.

    What it cannot tell usFollow-up averaged 14.7 months and the authors call long-term complications unknown. The devices and doses varied widely; the result describes shock wave therapy for one condition, not StemWave or any single device.

    Publication details & citation

    Roerdink et al. Complications of extracorporeal shockwave therapy in plantar fasciitis: Systematic review. International Journal of Surgery. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.08.587.

    Read the publication record

Read our editorial policy for how sources and clinical review are identified.