Ultrasound guided local steroid injection versus extracorporeal shockwave therapy in the treatment of plantar fasciitis

Efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave therapy, compared to corticosteroid injections, on pain, plantar fascia thickness and foot function in patients with plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shock waves versus corticosteroids injections on pain, thickness of plantar fascia and foot function in patients with plantar fasciitis. Secondarily, to assess the efficacy of radial and focused extracorporeal shock waves and the most appropriated intensity (high, medium or low).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL and PEDro, until April 2024, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of extracorporeal shock waves versus corticosteroids injections on pain intensity and sensitivity, thickness of plantar fascia and foot function in patients with plantar fasciitis. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using PEDro Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Pooled effect was calculated using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI).

RESULTS

Sixteen studies involving 1121 patients, showing a mean of 6 points in PEDro scale, were included. At three months, extracorporeal shock waves were better than corticosteroids injections in reducing pain (SMD -0.6; 95%CI -1.1 to -0.11) and thickness of the plantar fascia (SMD -0.4; 95%CI -0.8 to -0.01) and increasing foot function (SMD 0.27; 95%CI 0.12-0.44). At six months, extracorporeal shock waves are more effective in reducing pain (SMD -0.81; 95%CI -1.6 to -0.06) and increasing foot function (SMD 0.67; 95%CI 0.45-0.89). Local pain and slight erythema were the most frequent adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Extracorporeal shock waves are a safe therapy, presenting more efficacy than corticosteroids injections in improving pain, thickness of plantar fascia and foot function at mid-term.

Enthesitis in Spondyloarthritis Including Psoriatic Arthritis-To Inject or Not To Inject?: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE

Enthesitis is a key manifestation of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA) and is considered to be the tissue where the disease initiates. Enthesitis leads to pain and substantial limitations in patients with PsA. Treatment is key in achieving remission or minimal disease activity. Whether it is safe to apply injections to entheseal tissue is unknown. This narrative review aimed to summarize the literature on the efficacy and tolerability of entheseal corticosteroid (CS) injections.

METHODS

The published literature was searched through PubMed as well as identifying relevant articles from their citations,  for articles on the anatomic location of the injection, tissue characteristics (eg, whether there is a tendon sheath), blind versus imaging-guided and entheseal versus perientheseal injections, and related studies in animals. Given that articles on SpA are limited, those on mechanical enthesopathies were also included.

FINDINGS

The literature on the efficacy and tolerability of entheseal CS injection in SpA and PsA are limited. In most articles on entheseal injection, the entheseal tissue has not actually been targeted. The decision of entheseal injection should be made on an individual basis, with consideration of the use of CS injection as the last treatment option following more conservative measures such as NSAIDs, physiotherapy, rest, and lifestyle modifications. Entheseal injection should be avoided in high-risk patients, such as those who have rupture at the enthesis. Diagnostic ultrasound is advised to ensure the presence of inflammation that can potentially benefit from corticosteroid injection, as well as the absence of rupture. In the authors' perspective, perientheseal injections should be tried before intraentheseal injections. Finally, ultrasound guidance for needle placement is strongly encouraged.

IMPLICATIONS

The literature on the efficacy and tolerability of entheseal CS injection in SpA and PsA is limited. With the lack of quality data, recommendations on entheseal corticosteroid injection remain expert opinion.

Intralesional Steroid Injection Versus Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy in the Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis: A Comparative, Prospective, Case Series Study

Background This study aimed to compare and evaluate the outcomes of intralesional steroid injections (ultrasound-guided) versus extracorporeal shockwave therapy in the treatment of plantar fasciitis. Methodology Between January 2021 and March 2022, 120 (84 male, 36 female) patients with a confirmed diagnosis of plantar fasciitis were identified. Subjective assessment was done using Mayo Clinical Score, and objective evaluation was done by measuring plantar fascia thickness using ultrasonography. For this study, two groups were made, wherein group A was administered a high dose of extracorporeal shockwave therapy, and group B was administered ultrasound-guided intralesional or local steroid injections. Results Plantar fascia thickness was considerably reduced after therapy in both groups; however, the difference in thickness reduction was not statistically significant between both groups. Mayo Clinic Scores showed statistically significant improvement in pain; however, the difference in pain reduction was not statistically significant between both groups. Conclusions A considerable clinical and radiological improvement was noted in both groups; however, we did not record statistically significant and superior results in either group. Intralesional steroid injections provided faster clinical improvement and better patient compliance.

Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Foot and Ankle Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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.

The effects of shockwave therapy on musculoskeletal conditions based on changes in imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Shockwave therapy (SWT) is a commonly used intervention for a number of musculoskeletal conditions with varying clinical outcomes. However, the capacity of SWT to influence pathophysiological processes and the morphology of affected tissues remains unclear. The objective of the current review is to evaluate changes in imaging outcomes of musculoskeletal conditions following SWT.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, CINAHL and SportDiscus was conducted from inception to October 2018. Prospective clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of SWT based on changes in imaging outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Articles were evaluated independently for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias list and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies. Random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression with a priori determined covariates was conducted for each condition to determine potential predictors of SWT effects.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies were included, with data from 27 studies available for effect size pooling. Meta-analyses and meta-regression on imaging outcomes were performed for rotator cuff calcific tendinitis (n = 11), plantar fasciitis (n = 7) and osteonecrosis of the femoral head (n = 9). There was an overall reduction in the size of measured lesion following SWT (MD 8.44 mm (95%CI -4.30, 12.57), p < 0.001) for calcium deposit diameter, (MD 0.92 mm (95%CI -0.03, 1.81), p = 0.04) for plantar fascia thickness and (MD 4.84% (95%CI -0.06, 9.75), p = 0.05) for lesion size in femoral head osteonecrosis. Meta-regression showed no influence of SWT dosage parameters, however, baseline lesion size was an independent predictor for changes in imaging outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

SWT altered the morphology of musculoskeletal conditions, potentially reflecting changes in underlying pathophysiological processes. The parameters of SWT dosage are not significant predictors of changes in imaging outcomes. Lack of adequate reporting of imaging outcomes limited the conclusions that could be drawn from the current review. Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42018091140.

Corticosteroid injection for plantar heel pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Corticosteroid injection is frequently used for plantar heel pain (plantar fasciitis), although there is limited high-quality evidence to support this treatment. Therefore, this study reviewed randomised trials to estimate the effectiveness of corticosteroid injection for plantar heel pain.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials that compared corticosteroid injection to any comparator. Primary outcomes were pain and function, categorised as short (0 to 6 weeks), medium (7 to 12 weeks) or longer term (13 to 52 weeks).

Results

A total of 47 trials (2989 participants) were included. For reducing pain in the short term, corticosteroid injection was more effective than autologous blood injection (SMD -0.56; 95% CI, − 0.86 to − 0.26) and foot orthoses (SMD -0.91; 95% CI, − 1.69 to − 0.13). There were no significant findings in the medium term. In the longer term, corticosteroid injection was less effective than dry needling (SMD 1.45; 95% CI, 0.70 to 2.19) and platelet-rich plasma injection (SMD 0.61; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.06). Notably, corticosteroid injection was found to have similar effectiveness to placebo injection for reducing pain in the short (SMD -0.98; 95% CI, − 2.06, 0.11) and medium terms (SMD -0.86; 95% CI, − 1.90 to 0.19). For improving function, corticosteroid injection was more effective than physical therapy in the short term (SMD -0.69; 95% CI, − 1.31 to − 0.07). When trials considered to have high risk of bias were excluded, there were no significant findings.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of this review, corticosteroid injection is more effective than some comparators for the reduction of pain and the improvement of function in people with plantar heel pain. However, corticosteroid injection is not more effective than placebo injection for reducing pain or improving function. Further trials that are of low risk of bias will strengthen this evidence.

Registration

PROSPERO registration number CRD42016053216.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-019-2749-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical effects of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy and ultrasound-guided local corticosteroid injections for plantar fasciitis in adults: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The argument on whether extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT) and corticosteroid injections (CSIs) exert an equivalent pain control or which is the better treatment for plantar fasciitis (PF) in adults remains to be resolved. It is important and necessary to conduct a meta-analysis to make a relatively more credible and overall assessment about which treatment method performs better pain control in treatment of PF in adults.

METHODS

From the inception to July 2018, the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched for all relevant studies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on comparing ESWT and CSI therapies in PF cases in adults were included. The primary outcome measure was visual analog scale (VAS) reduction, whereas the secondary outcomes included treatment success rate, recurrence rate, function scores, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs involving 658 cases were included in this meta-analysis. In the present study, meta-analysis showed that high-intensity ESWT had superior pain relief and success rates relative to the CSI group within 3 months, but the ESWT with low intensity was slightly inferior to CSI for efficacy within 3 months. In addition, patients with CSI may tend to increase the need for the analgesic and more adverse events may be associated with the ESWT. However, the ESWT and CSI present similar recurrent rate and functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis showed that the pain relief and success rates were related to energy intensity levels, with the high-intensity ESWT had the highest probability of being the best treatment within 3 months, followed by CSI, and low-intensity ESWT. More high-quality RCTs with long-term follow-up time are needed to further compare the differences of CSI and ESWT for adults with PF.

Retrospective Analysis of Plantar Fascia by Ultrasound Imaging in Patients with Plantar Fasciitis

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.

Injected corticosteroids for treating plantar heel pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Plantar heel pain, commonly resulting from plantar fasciitis, often results in significant morbidity. Treatment options include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), orthoses, physical therapy, physical agents (e.g. extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), laser) and invasive procedures including steroid injections.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of injected corticosteroids for treating plantar heel pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, clinical trials registries and conference proceedings. Latest search: 27 March 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of corticosteroid injections in the treatment of plantar heel pain in adults were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcome measures. We used a fixed-effect model unless heterogeneity was significant, when a random-effects model was considered. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for individual outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 39 studies (36 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 3 quasi-RCTs) that involved a total of 2492 adults. Most studies were small (median = 59 participants). Participants' mean ages ranged from 34 years to 59 years. When reported, most participants had heel pain for several months. The trials were usually conducted in outpatient specialty clinics of tertiary care hospitals in 17 countries. Steroid injection was given with a local anaesthetic agent in 34 trials. Follow-up was from one month to over two years. With one exception, trials were assessed at high risk of bias in one or more domains, mostly relating to lack of blinding, including lack of confirmation of allocation concealment. With two exceptions, we rated the available evidence as very low quality, implying in each case that we are 'very uncertain about the estimate'.The 39 trials covered 18 comparisons, with six of the seven trials with three or four groups providing evidence towards two comparisons.Eight trials (724 participants) compared steroid injection versus placebo or no treatment. Steroid injection may lead to lower heel pain visual analogue scores (VAS) (0 to 100; higher scores = worse pain) in the short-term (< 1 month) (MD -6.38, 95% CI -11.13 to -1.64; 350 participants; 5 studies; I² = 65%; low quality evidence). Based on a minimal clinically significant difference (MCID) of 8 for average heel pain, the 95% CI includes a marginal clinical benefit. This potential benefit was diminished when data were restricted to three placebo-controlled trials. Steroid injection made no difference to average heel pain in the medium-term (1 to 6 months follow-up) (MD -3.47, 95% CI -8.43 to 1.48; 382 participants; 6 studies; I² = 40%; low quality evidence). There was very low quality evidence for no effect on function in the medium-term and for an absence of serious adverse events (219 participants, 4 studies). No studies reported on other adverse events, such as post-injection pain, and on return to previous activity. There was very low quality evidence for fewer treatment failures (defined variously as persistent heel pain at 8 weeks, steroid injection at 12 weeks, and unrelieved pain at 6 months) after steroid injection.The available evidence for other comparisons was rated as very low quality. We are therefore very uncertain of the estimates for the relative effects on people with heel pain of steroids compared with other interventions in:1. Tibial nerve block with anaesthetic (2 trials); orthoses (4 trials); oral NSAIDs (2 trials); and intensive physiotherapy (1 trial).2. Physical modalities: ESWT (5 trials); laser (2 trials); and radiation therapy (1 trial).3. Other invasive procedures: locally injectable NSAID (1 trial); platelet-rich plasma injections (5 trials); autologous blood injections (2 trials); botulinum toxin injections (2 trials); cryopreserved human amniotic membrane injection (1 trial); localised peppering with a needle (1 trial); dry needling (1 trial); and mini scalpel needle release (1 trial).We are also uncertain about the estimates from trials testing different techniques of local steroid injection: ultrasonography-guided versus palpation-guided (5 trials); and scintigraphy-guided versus palpation-guided (1 trial).An exploratory analysis involving pooling data from 21 trials reporting on adverse events revealed two ruptures of plantar fascia (reported in 1 trial) and three injection site infections (reported in 2 trials) in 699 participants allocated to steroid injection study arms. Five trials reported a total of 27 participants with less serious short-term adverse events in the 699 participants allocated steroid injection study arms. Reported treatments were analgesia, ice or both. Given the high risk of selective reporting for these outcomes and imprecision, this evidence was rated at very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low quality evidence that local steroid injections compared with placebo or no treatment may slightly reduce heel pain up to one month but not subsequently. The available evidence for other outcomes of this comparison was very low quality. Where available, the evidence from comparisons of steroid injections with other interventions used to treat heel pain and of different methods of guiding the injection was also very low quality. Although serious adverse events relating to steroid injection were rare, these were under-reported and a higher risk cannot be ruled out.Further research should focus on establishing the effects (benefits and harms) of injected steroids compared with placebo in typical clinical settings, subsequent to a course of unsuccessful conservative therapy. Ideally, this should be preceded by research, including patient involvement, aimed to obtain consensus on the priority questions for treating plantar heel pain.

Comparative Effectiveness of Radial Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy and Ultrasound-Guided Local Corticosteroid Injection Treatment for Plantar Fasciitis

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.

Plantar fascia segmentation and thickness estimation in ultrasound images

Ultrasound (US) imaging offers significant potential in diagnosis of plantar fascia (PF) injury and monitoring treatment. In particular US imaging has been shown to be reliable in foot and ankle assessment and offers a real-time effective imaging technique that is able to reliably confirm structural changes, such as thickening, and identify changes in the internal echo structure associated with diseased or damaged tissue. Despite the advantages of US imaging, images are difficult to interpret during medical assessment. This is partly due to the size and position of the PF in relation to the adjacent tissues. It is therefore a requirement to devise a system that allows better and easier interpretation of PF ultrasound images during diagnosis. This study proposes an automatic segmentation approach which for the first time extracts ultrasound data to estimate size across three sections of the PF (rearfoot, midfoot and forefoot). This segmentation method uses artificial neural network module (ANN) in order to classify small overlapping patches as belonging or not-belonging to the region of interest (ROI) of the PF tissue. Features ranking and selection techniques were performed as a post-processing step for features extraction to reduce the dimension and number of the extracted features. The trained ANN classifies the image overlapping patches into PF and non-PF tissue, and then it is used to segment the desired PF region. The PF thickness was calculated using two different methods: distance transformation and area-length calculation algorithms. This new approach is capable of accurately segmenting the PF region, differentiating it from surrounding tissues and estimating its thickness.

Treatment Outcomes of Corticosteroid Injection and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy as Two Primary Therapeutic Methods for Acute Plantar Fasciitis: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

The outcome of corticosteroid injection (CSI) and extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) as primary treatment of acute plantar fasciitis has been debated. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate and compare the therapeutic effects of CSI and ESWT in patients with acute (<6-week duration) symptomatic plantar fasciitis. Of the 116 eligible patients, 68 were randomized to 2 equal groups of 34 patients, each undergoing either ESWT or CSI. The ESWT method included 2000 impulses with energy of 0.15 mJ/mm(2) and a total energy flux density of 900 mJ/mm(2) for 3 consecutive sessions at 1-week intervals. In the CSI group, 40 mg of methyl prednisolone acetate plus 1 mL of lidocaine 2% was injected into the maximal tenderness point at the inframedial calcaneal tuberosity. The success and recurrence rates and pain intensity measured using the visual analog scale, were recorded and compared at the 3-month follow-up visit. The pain intensity had reduced significantly in all patients undergoing either technique. However, the value and trend of pain reduction in the CSI group was significantly greater than those in the ESWT group (p < .0001). In the ESWT and CSI groups, 19 (55.9%) and 5 (14.7%) patients experienced treatment failure, respectively. Age, gender, body mass index, and recurrence rate were similar between the 2 groups (p > .05). Both ESWT and CSI can be used as the primary and/or initial treatment option for treating patients with acute plantar fasciitis; however, the CSI technique had better therapeutic outcomes.

Application of ultrasound in the assessment of plantar fascia in patients with plantar fasciitis: a systematic review

Plantar fasciitis (PFS) is one of the most common causes of heel pain, estimated to affect 10% of the general population during their lifetime. Ultrasound (US) imaging technique is increasingly being used to assess plantar fascia (PF) thickness, monitor the effect of different interventions and guide therapeutic interventions in patients with PFS. The purpose of the present study was to systematically review previously published studies concerning the application of US in the assessment of PF in patients with PFS. A literature search was performed for the period 2000-2012 using the Science Direct, Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, Medline, Embase and Springer databases. The key words used were: ultrasound, sonography, imaging techniques, ultrasonography, interventional ultrasonography, plantar fascia and plantar fasciitis. The literature search yielded 34 relevant studies. Sixteen studies evaluated the effect of different interventions on PF thickness in patients with PFS using US; 12 studies compared PF thickness between patients with and without PFS using US; 6 studies investigated the application of US as a guide for therapeutic intervention in patients with PFS. There were variations among studies in terms of methodology used. The results indicated that US can be considered a reliable imaging technique for assessing PF thickness, monitoring the effect of different interventions and guiding therapeutic interventions in patients with PFS.

Use of primary corticosteroid injection in the management of plantar fasciopathy: is it time to challenge existing practice?

Plantar fasciopathy (PF) is characterized by degeneration of the fascia at the calcaneal enthesis. It is a common cause of foot pain, accounting for 90% of clinical presentations of heel pathology. In 2009-2010, 9.3 million working days were lost in England due to musculoskeletal disorders, with 2.4 million of those attributable to lower-limb disorders, averaging 16.3 lost working days per case. Numerous studies have attempted to establish the short- and long-term clinical efficacy of corticosteroid injections in the management of PF. Earlier studies have not informed clinical practice. As the research base has developed, evidence has emerged supporting clinical efficacy. With diverse opinions surrounding the etiology and efficacy debate, there does not seem to be a consensus of opinion on a common treatment pathway. For example, in England, the National Institute for Clinical Health and Excellence does not publish strategic guidance for clinical practice. Herein, we review and evaluate core literature that examines the clinical efficacy of corticosteroid injection as a treatment for PF. Outcome measures were wide ranging but largely yielded results supportive of the short- and long-term benefits of this modality. The analysis also looked to establish, where possible, "proof of concept." This article provides evidence supporting the clinical efficacy of corticosteroid injections, in particular those guided by imaging technology. The evidence challenges existing orthodoxy, which marginalizes this treatment as a secondary option. This challenge is supported by recently revised guidelines published by the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons advocating corticosteroid injection as a primary treatment option.