Search Results
Low-Dye taping is often used as a short-term treatment for plantar fasciitis. We evaluated the short-term effectiveness of low-Dye taping in relieving pain associated with plantar fasciitis. In this comparative study conducted at a university-based clinic, 65 participants with plantar fasciitis who received low-Dye taping for 3 to 5 days were compared with 40 participants who did not receive taping. Pain before and after treatment was measured using a visual analog pain scale. Analysis of the data was by the intention-to-treat principle, and a linear regression approach to analysis of covariance was used to compare effects. The visual analog pain scale score improved by a mean of 20 mm (from 44 to 24 mm) in the taping group and worsened by a mean of 6 mm (from 51 to 57 mm) in the control group. The analysis of covariance–adjusted difference in therapeutic effect favored the taping group by 31.7 mm (95% confidence interval, 23.6–39.9 mm) and was statistically significant (t = 7.71). In the short term, low-Dye taping significantly reduces the pain associated with plantar fasciitis. These findings are the first quantitative results to demonstrate the significant therapeutic effect of this treatment modality in relieving the symptoms associated with plantar fasciitis. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 95(6): 525–530, 2005)
Background: Plantar fasciitis is a common cause of heel pain. Conservative treatment is often effective, but in many cases, invasive procedures may be required. Local corticosteroid injection is the most frequently used invasive technique and can be given under ultrasound (USG) or palpation guidance. We sought to compare the outcome of local corticosteroid injection by USG and palpation guidance in plantar fasciitis.
Methods: This was a prospective randomized study of patients who presented with heel pain between July 2015 and November 2016 and were screened for plantar fasciitis by USG. Patients with confirmed plantar fasciitis were managed conservatively for 4 weeks. The 60 consecutive patients not responding to the conservative treatment were randomized into two groups. Group A (n = 30) received a corticosteroid injection under USG guidance. Group B (n = 30) received a corticosteroid injection under palpation guidance. Patients were followed up at 3 and 6 weeks. We compared the visual analog scale score, plantar fascia thickness, and heel pad thickness in both groups.
Results: There was significant pain relief in both groups after 3 and 6 weeks of local corticosteroid injection, with greater relief noted in the USG-guided group. There was a significant decrement in plantar fascia thickness in both groups after 3 and 6 weeks; however, a greater decrement was observed in the USG-guided group. Neither group showed a significant difference in heel pad thickness after 3 and 6 weeks.
Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided injection provided better pain relief and a greater reduction in plantar fascia thickness than palpation-guided injection.
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: Patients frequently use YouTube to learn about their illness. For this reason, the educational and quality of YouTube videos about various diseases has been investigated. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy and quality of YouTube videos.
Methods: A standard query was performed on the YouTube database using the following search terms: Plantar fasciitis, heel spur, and calcaneal spur. For each search term, the top 50 videos determined by YouTube’s “relevance” according to its algorithm were evaluated (150 videos in total). After exclusion, 140 videos were included in the study. These videos were watched by 2 observers and the videos were evaluated and scored according to the Global Quality Score (GQS), DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and Plantar Fasciitis and Calcaneal Spurs Specific Score (PFSS) scoring systems.
Results: According to the JAMA criteria, 76.42% of the videos and 43.57% of the videos according to the GQS scored 2 points or less. According to DISCERN criteria, 67.15% of the videos were evaluated as very poor/poor. According to the PFSS, 83.5% of the videos were rated as poor or very poor.
Conclusions: These findings can be interpreted as the general information content of the videos about plantar fasciitis is insufficient and their reliability and quality are low. As a result, it can be concluded that the quality and reliability of YouTube videos regarding plantar fasciitis are insufficient for patients. Universities/associations prepare videos that provide information about plantar fasciitis to patients, and that these videos are presented on certain platforms can be a solution.
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)
Plantar fasciitis is a common cause of heel pain. The aim of this study was to review the current literature and attempt to clarify whether endoscopic plantar fasciotomy (EPF) is an effective and reliable treatment for plantar fasciitis in comparison with other invasive or noninvasive treatments. We performed an electronic search of the medical literature in PubMed database using combinations of the following keywords: plantar fasciitis, endoscopic treatment, and plantar aponeurosis. Overall, we had shown that patients had better scores following EPF/endoscopic plantar fascia release. The clinical scores were improved postoperatively and most of the patients were satisfied. Furthermore, the clinical trials showed that time to return to work or to previous activities was shorter compared with other treatments. These studies suggest that EPF/endoscopic plantar fascia release is probably an effective treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis. EPF is an efficient, safe treatment with good early postoperative results in patients with recalcitrant plantar fasciitis. There is evidence that other methods are equivalently effective for EPF, and some authors support that they should be considered as a second-line treatment because of their minimal invasive character and very low risk of complications; thus, more research is required.
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)
