Search Results
Abstract
Background: Plantar fasciitis (PF) is predominantly treated conservatively through some modalities such as extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT), yet the short effect of these modalities on pain and function is still ambiguous. This study aims to compare the short-term effectiveness of ESWT and LLLT on pain and function in patients with PF.
Methods: Participants (n=47) were randomly assigned into 2 groups as ESWT (n=27) and LLLT (n=20). ESWT (once a week) and LLLT (three times a week) were administered to the participants for 3 weeks. Foot function index (FFI) including pain, disability, and activity limitation subscales was administered at baseline and post-treatment. A reduction of one point in total scores was considered as a minimum clinically important difference. Repeated measures of ANOVA were used to analyze the changes in outcomes and compare the groups.
Results: There were significant main effects of time, and significant interaction effects between group and time on pain (P<0.001), disability (P<0.001), and activity limitation (P<0.05). The main effect of the group was not significant for all subscales (P=0.811, P=0.481, P=0.865, respectively). The LLLT group showed a significant decline in pain (P<0.001), disability (P<0.001), and activity limitation (P<0.001) while there was no change in the ESWT group over time (P=0.319, P=0.711, P=1.0 respectively). Consistently, 95% of participants in the LLLT had CID in the pain subscale whereas 48% of the ESWT group had.
Conclusions: LLLT was found to be superior to ESWT as an effective approach in the short-term management of PF.
Abstract
Background: The effectiveness of different energy levels used in extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) have been investigated in previous studies, but controversy remains regarding which energy levels should be used in the treatment of plantar fasciitis. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of different energy levels used in ESWT in the treatment of plantar fasciitis through comparisons of plantar fascia thickness and pressure distribution.
Methods: Between July 2020 and September 2020, a total of 51 patients (71 feet) with plantar fasciitis were randomized into three treatment groups using the sealed envelope method. Group 1 (n = 25) received low energy density (0.09 mJ/mm2 ), Group 2 (n = 25) received medium energy density (0.18 mJ/mm2), and Group 3 (n = 21) received high energy density (0.38 mJ/mm2). All groups received three sessions of ESWT with a frequency of 2,000 shocks/min at one week intervals. The patients were evaluated before and after treatment using a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, the Foot Function Index (FFI), and plantar fascia thickness measured by ultrasonography, and plantar pressure distribution.
Results: The posttreatment VAS and FFI scores were determined to be statistically significantly lower than the pretreatment values in all three groups (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the pre and post treatment values of VAS, FFI scores, plantar fascia thickness and pressure distribution (p>0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of percentage changes in all the outcome parameters (p>0.05).
Conclusions: The results of the study suggest that neither low, medium, or high levels of ESWT were superior to one another in terms of pain, foot functions, fascia thickness and pressure distribution in the treatment 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.
Letters to the Editor
Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Shockwave Treatment in 353 Patients with Chronic Plantar Fasciitis
Letters to the Editor
Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Shockwave Treatment in 353 Patients with Chronic Plantar Fasciitis
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of high-dose extracorporeal shockwave therapy applied with an ankle block and corticosteroid injection in patients with plantar fasciitis whose symptoms persisted for more than 6 months.
Methods: Sixty patients were assessed clinically at presentation and at 3-month follow-up with a patient-assessed 100-mm visual analog scale of pain and a physician-assessed heel tenderness index. A therapeutic response rate was evaluated. A decrease of at least 50% from baseline to 3 months in visual analog scale or heel tenderness index scores was accepted as a successful result.
Results: Extracorporeal shockwave therapy and corticosteroid injection provided significant improvements in visual analog scale and heel tenderness index scores, but between the two groups there was no significant difference in the visual analog scale score change 3 months after treatment (P > .05). Twenty-seven of 33 patients (82%) in the extracorporeal shockwave therapy group and 23 of 27 (85%) in the corticosteroid injection group had a successful therapeutic response after 3 months.
Conclusions: Corticosteroid injection and extracorporeal shockwave therapy are successful treatment modalities for plantar fasciitis. Corticosteroid injection treatment is cost effective compared with extracorporeal shockwave therapy, and corticosteroid injection may be the first treatment choice according to these results. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 100(2): 105–110, 2010)
Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for the Treatment of Achilles Tendinopathies
A Prospective Study
Background: Extracorporeal shockwave therapy has been shown to be effective in the treatment of chronic tendon pathology in the elbow, shoulder, and plantar fascia. This prospective study examines the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave therapy in the treatment of chronic Achilles tendon disorders.
Methods: Twenty-three patients (23 feet) were treated with extracorporeal shockwave therapy for Achilles tendinosis, insertional tendonitis, or both. Indications for treatment were a minimum of 6 months of conservative care, and a visual analog pain score > 5. The mean follow-up was 20 months (range, 4–35 months).
Results: Ninety-one percent (14 patients) were satisfied or very satisfied (23 patients) with treatment. Eighty-seven percent (20 patients) stated that extracorporeal shockwave therapy improved their condition, 13% (3 patients) said it did not affect the condition, and none stated that it made them worse. Eighty-seven percent (20 patients) stated they would have the procedure again if given the choice. Four months after extracorporeal shockwave therapy, the mean visual analog score for morning pain decreased from 7.0 to 2.3, and activity pain decreased from 8.1 to 3.1.
Conclusion: High-power extracorporeal shockwave therapy is safe, noninvasive, and effective, and it has a role in the treatment of chronic Achilles tendinopathy. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 98(6): 466–468, 2008)
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.
Background: Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) was first introduced into clinical practice in 1982 and has been a beneficial inclusion to the noninvasive treatment option of numerous orthopaedic pathologies. However, clinical evidence of the use of ESWT for various foot and ankle disorders has been limited with a consensus on its efficacy yet available. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature, to provide a critical evaluation and meta-analysis for the use of ESWT in foot and ankle disorders.
Methods: The PubMed and Embase databases were systematically reviewed and clinical studies that reported ESWT use for various foot and ankle disorders included.
Results: A total of 24 clinical studies that included 12 randomized controlled trials and 12 case series were identified. Analysis of the evidence has indicated that ESWT can help manage plantar fasciitis, calcaneal spur, Achilles tendinopathy and Morton’s neuroma. Meta-analysis of the change in pre- to post-VAS overall scores for plantar fasciitis significantly favored ESWT compared to placebo/conservative treatment with a MD -3.10 (95% CI, -4.36 to -1.83; I2 = 68%; P < 0.00001).
Conclusions: The current evidence has suggested that ESWT can provide symptomatic benefit to plantar fasciitis treatment, with minimal and unremarkable side effects. Overall, ESWT has been demonstrated to be a safe treatment option with a favorable complication profile. Further well-designed studies of ESWT for the treatment of calcaneal spurs, Achilles tendinopathy and Morton’s neuroma are warranted to more soundly and safely support its current use. Future studies are suggested to investigate the optimization of ESWT treatment protocols.
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.
