Search Results
Background:
Plantar fasciitis is one of the most common clinical presentations seen by podiatric clinicians today. With corticosteroid injection being a classic treatment modality and extracorporeal pulse-activated therapy (EPAT) technology improving, the purpose of this study was to retrospectively compare pain and functional outcomes of patients with plantar fasciitis treated with either injection or EPAT.
Methods:
Between November 1, 2014, and April 30, 2016, 60 patients who met the inclusion criteria were treated with either corticosteroid injection or EPAT. Patients were evaluated with both the visual analog scale (VAS) and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Hindfoot Score at each visit.
Results:
The EPAT was found to reduce pain on the VAS by a mean of 1.98 points, whereas corticosteroid injection reduced pain by a mean of 0.94 points. This was a significant reduction in the VAS score for EPAT compared with corticosteroid injection (P = .035).
Conclusions:
Extracorporeal pulse-activated therapy is as effective as corticosteroid injection, if not more so, for the treatment of recalcitrant plantar fasciitis and should be considered earlier in the treatment course of plantar fasciitis.
Background:
Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) has recently been used as a new treatment modality for plantar fasciitis. We aimed to determine the efficacy of ESWT by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings.
Methods:
Thirty patients with plantar fasciitis who had received no treatment for 6 months were included. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy was applied once a week for a total of three sessions (frequency of 12–15 Hz, 2–3 bars, and 2,500 pulses). All of the patients were assessed with the visual analog scale, a 6-point evaluation scale, the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and MRI findings before and 3 months after ESWT. Visual analog scale scores were used in determining the pain level of patients in the morning, during activity, and at rest. Foot and ankle–related problems were evaluated with the FAOS.
Results:
The duration of painless walking according to the 6-point rating scale, the FAOS, and pain showed significant improvements after ESWT (P < .05). Significant decreases in MRI findings, including thickening of the plantar fascia, soft-tissue edema, and bone marrow edema, were observed after treatment (P < .05).
Conclusions:
Extracorporeal shockwave therapy is a safe and effective treatment that yields favorable results in improvement of pain and function for plantar fasciitis. An MRI is useful for determining response to ESWT for these patients.
Plantar Fasciitis—A Comparison of Treatment with Intralesional Steroids versus Platelet-Rich Plasma
A Randomized, Blinded Study
Background:
Many treatment options for plantar fasciitis currently exist, some with great success in pain relief. The objective of our study was to compare the use of intralesional steroids with platelet-rich plasma (PRP), using pain scales and functional evaluation, in patients with plantar fasciitis who did not respond to conservative treatment.
Methods:
A controlled, randomized, blinded clinical assay was performed. Patients were assigned to one of the two groups by selecting a sealed envelope. The steroid treatment group received 8 mg of dexamethasone plus 2 mL of lidocaine as a local anesthetic. The PRP treatment group received 3 mL of PRP activated with 0.45 mL of 10% calcium gluconate. All of the patients were evaluated at the beginning of the study, and at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks post-treatment with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI), and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale.
Results:
The right foot was the most frequently affected foot (63%). The average age of the patients was 44.8 years (range, 24–61 years). All scales used (VAS, FADI and AOFAS) showed that the difference was not statistically significant between the two groups.
Conclusions:
We can conclude that the use of PRP is an effective treatment method for patients with plantar fasciitis who do not respond to conservative treatment because PRP demonstrates an efficacy equal to that of steroids. However, the cost and the time for preparation the PRP are two of the disadvantages of this treatment.
Background:
The purpose of this study was to determine whether changes in plantar fascia thickness are a reliable gauge of efficacy of treatment protocols for plantar fasciitis.
Methods:
Thirty-nine feet (30 patients) with plantar fasciitis received an ultrasound examination to measure the thickness of the medial band of the plantar fascia. Each patient assessed his or her pain using the visual analogue scale. Following various treatments, a second ultrasound examination was performed and the thickness of the plantar fascia was again measured and subjective pain level assessed.
Results:
Twenty-nine feet (74.4%) showed a decrease in plantar fascia thickness and a decrease in pain. One foot (2.6%) experienced an increase in fascia thickness and reported an increase in pain. Four feet (10.3%) had an increase in thickness of the plantar fascia and reported no change in pain level. Three feet had minor increases in fascia thickness but reported a decrease in pain (7.7%). One foot (2.6%) had no change in fascia thickness but a decrease in pain and one foot (2.6%) had a decrease in the plantar fascia but no change in pain level. The average reduction in fascia thickness was 0.82 mm ±1.04 mm, correlating with an average improvement in pain of 3.64 ± 2.7 (P < 0.005).
Conclusions:
This study provides evidence that changing thickness of the plantar fascia is a valid objective measurement to assess effectiveness of new or existing treatment protocols. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 101(5): 385–389, 2011)
Background: Recent research has discussed the use of low-frequency electrical stimulation to increase blood flow by eliciting muscular contraction in soft tissues. This randomized clinical trial examined the efficacy of low-frequency electrical stimulation combined with stretching exercises and foot orthoses in individuals diagnosed as having plantar fasciitis for less than 6 months.
Methods: Twenty-six participants aged 18 to 65 years diagnosed as having plantar fasciitis were randomly assigned to two treatment groups: a control group receiving only stretching and orthoses and a treatment group receiving low-frequency electrical stimulation in addition to stretching and orthoses. To assess treatment response, a visual analog scale was used to determine first-step morning pain, and changes in daily activity levels were monitored by using a validated outcome measure. All of the participants were assessed before starting treatment, after 4 weeks of treatment, and 3 months after the conclusion of treatment.
Results: Participants in the control and experimental groups demonstrated pain reduction and improvements in functional activity levels after 4 weeks and 3 months.
Conclusions: Regardless of whether low-frequency electrical stimulation was used as an intervention, the use of plantar fascia–specific stretching and prefabricated foot orthoses provided short-term (3-month) pain relief and improvement in functional activity levels. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 99(6): 481–488, 2009)
Clinicians often use foot orthoses to manage the symptoms of plantar fasciitis. Although there has been considerable research evaluating the effectiveness of orthoses for this condition, there is still a lack of scientific evidence that is of suitable quality to fully inform clinical practice. Randomized controlled trials are recognized as the “gold standard” when evaluating the effectiveness of treatments. We discuss why randomized controlled trials are so important, the features of a well-conducted randomized controlled trial, and some of the problems that arise when trial design is not sound. We then evaluate the available evidence for the use of foot orthoses, with particular focus on published randomized controlled trials. From the evidence to date, it seems that foot orthoses do have a role in the management of plantar fasciitis and that prefabricated orthoses are a worthwhile initial management strategy. At this time, however, it is not possible to recommend either prefabricated or customized orthoses as being better, and it cannot be inferred that customized orthoses are more effective over time and therefore have a cost advantage. Additional good-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to answer these questions. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 94(6): 542–549, 2004)
Background:
We compared diagnostic ultrasound images of the plantar fascia with available patient histories for symptomatic patients previously diagnosed as having plantar fasciitis. Plantar fascia thickness and depth, the prevalence of perifascial hypoechoic lesions, and injury timelines in patients were reviewed.
Methods:
Images and histories for 126 symptomatic patients were collected from a patient database. We documented plantar fascia depth and thickness and the visualization of hypoechoic perifascial lesions. After image analysis, the obtained plantar fascia thickness measurements were compared with various patient attributes for possible relationships, including age, weight, and body mass index. In addition, plantar fascia thickness measurements were separated based on injury timeline as well as symptomatic/asymptomatic foot for patients with unilateral conditions to check for significant differences between subgroups. These were, in turn, compared with a control group of 71 individuals with no heel pain or diagnosis of plantar fasciitis.
Results:
Overall, mean ± SD symptomatic thickness (n = 148) was 6.53 ± 1.56 mm. Mean ± SD symptomatic depth (n = 136) was 13.36 ± 2.14 mm. For the control group, mean ± SD thickness was 3.20 ± 0.66 mm and depth was 10.30 ± 2.00 mm. Comparison of thickness based on injury timeline showed two significant differences: acute injuries (≤3 months) are significantly thicker than chronic injuries (>3 months), and only acute symptomatic thicknesses are significantly different from their asymptomatic thickness counterparts. Age, weight, and body mass index did not show significant correlations to thickness. Analysis of ultrasound images showed that 93% of symptomatic feet had hypoechoic lesions.
Conclusions:
Injury timeline and the presence of hypoechoic lesions may play important roles in patient discomfort, diagnosis, and treatment of plantar fasciitis.
This article describes a patient with plantar fascial pain who presented to the office of one of the authors. Physical examination and the patient’s description of the history of symptoms revealed classic signs and symptoms of plantar fasciitis. The patient was treated with numerous conservative modalities, including ultrasound, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, trigger-point injections, over-the-counter orthoses, and stretching exercises. When the pain was not relieved by these conservative measures, magnetic resonance imaging of the area was performed. Visualization of the insertional area of the plantar fascia revealed a mass inferior to, as well as infiltrated into, the plantar fascia. Surgical excision of the lesion resulted in complete elimination of the patient’s pain. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 91(2): 89-92, 2001)
A 16-question post-treatment survey was sent to 874 patients after extracorporeal shockwave treatment for chronic plantar fasciitis. Of the 377 surveys returned, 353 were used for analysis. These patients were treated by 169 physicians in 19 states using either electrohydraulic or electromagnetic extracorporeal shockwave equipment. Seventy-six percent of the patients underwent treatment after having had continued pain for a year or longer. Seventy percent of patients who rated their pretreatment pain level as severe (score ≥ 8 on a scale from 1 to 10) experienced sharp declines in pain, with a sharp decline considered to be a difference in pain level before and after treatment of 3 or more. In addition, 66% of patients who rated their pretreatment immobility as severe (score ≥ 8 on a scale from 1 to 10) experienced sharp declines in immobility. Of the patients who underwent extracorporeal shockwave treatment, 69% indicated that they would recommend this procedure to someone in a similar situation. If extracorporeal shockwave treatment were not available, 62% of patients indicated that they would have undergone open or invasive surgery, and 41% indicated that they would have continued with additional physician office visits. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 95(6): 517–524, 2005)
Background:
We compared the long-term clinical and ultrasonographic effects of radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy (rESWT) versus ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection treatment in patients with plantar fasciitis unresponsive to conservative therapy.
Methods:
Seventy-two patients with unilateral plantar fasciitis were randomized to receive either rESWT (three times once per week) (n = 36) or corticosteroid treatment (a single 1-mL dose of betamethasone sodium plus 0.5 mL of prilocaine under ultrasound guidance by injection into the plantar fascia) (n = 36). The primary outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS) and Foot Function Index (FFI) scores. Secondary outcome measures included the heel tenderness index (HTI) score and plantar fascia thickness (PFT) as obtained by ultrasound examination. All of the assessments were performed at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment.
Results:
Significant improvements were observed in the rESWT group in VAS, HTI, and FFI scores and PFT at the end of treatment and were maintained during follow-up. Posttreatment improvements in VAS, HTI, and FFI scores and PFT were also seen in the corticosteroid group but were not maintained for VAS and FFI scores after the completion of therapy and were lost at 1 and 6 months, respectively. No serious treatment-related complications occurred.
Conclusions:
Both rESWT and corticosteroid injection therapy are effective modalities for treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis. However, rESWT seems to be superior to corticosteroid injection therapy due to its longer duration of action.
