The influence of local steroid injections, body weight and the length of symptoms in the treatment of painful subcalcaneal spurs with extracorporeal shock wave therapy

Efficacies of extracorporeal shockwave therapy and low-level laser therapy in patients with plantar fasciitis

BACKGROUND

Various conservative treatment methods can be administered in the early stages of plantar fasciitis (PF). The aim of the treatment is to enable the patient to return to the physical activity as soon as possible.

AIM

In this study it was aimed to compare efficacies of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy (ESWT) and Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) on patients with PF.

DESIGN

A local prospective cross-sectional study SETTING: Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Outpatient Clinic of Sakarya University, Faculty of Medicine POPULATION: Patients aged 18-70 years, having ongoing heel pain for at least 3 months, and not using oral and/or parenteral corticosteroids in the last 6 months.

METHODS

A total of 40 patients with PF included in the current study. Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Roles and Maudsley Score (RMS), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Association Score (AOFAS) and Foot Function Index (FFI) questionnaire were performed for all patients. ESWT and LLLT groups comprised of 22 (55%) and 18 (45%) patients, respectively.

RESULTS

We found significant improvements in scores based on the VAS, RMS, AOFAS, FFI in patients with PF and it was sustained for 3 months (p = 0.001, for all scores). While decrease in scores based on the VAS and FFI in LLLT group was statistically more significant compared to ESWT group (p = 0.014, p = 0.013), there was statistically less significant decrease in scores on the AOFAS in LLLT group than that of ESWT group (p = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicated significant improvements in terms of pain, functional status and daily life activities following the administration of either of the treatments. Furthermore, LLLT was found to be significantly more effective for alleviating pain than ESWT in the treatment of PF.

Outcome of Corticosteroid Injections, Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy, and Radiofrequency Thermal Lesioning for Chronic Plantar Fasciitis

BACKGROUND

Chronic heel pain with plantar fasciitis is relatively common and can affect adults of all ages regardless of an active or sedentary lifestyle. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of corticosteroid injection (CSI), extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), and radiofrequency thermal lesioning (RTL) treatments in chronic plantar heel pain that has been unresponsive to other conservative treatments.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the results of 217 patients treated with CSI (n = 73), ESWT (n = 75), and RTL (n = 69). The treatment efficacy and pain intensity, as measured using the visual analog scale, were recorded and compared at the 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Pain intensity decreased significantly in all patients. However, it decreased significantly more in the CSI and RTL groups than in the ESWT group (P < .001). Age, sex, body mass index, calcaneal spur presence, and symptom duration were similar among 3 groups (P > .05). No complications were noted after the CSI, ESWT, or RTL sessions.

CONCLUSION

CSI, ESWT, and RTL successfully treated chronic plantar heel pain that did not respond to other conservative treatments; however, CSI and RTL yielded better therapeutic outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

The effect of high intensity laser therapy in the management of painful calcaneal spur: a double blind, placebo-controlled study

To evaluate the effect of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) in patients with calcaneal spur. The patients were randomized to receive either HILT + exercise (n = 21) (five times a week for a period of 3 weeks) or placebo HILT + exercise (n = 21) (five times a week for a period of 3 weeks). Pain severity (with visual analog scale (VAS) and with Roles and Maudsley score (RMS)), functionality (with Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS)), plantar pressure measurement, and quality of life (with short form-36 (SF-36)) of the patients were evaluated at baseline, at 4 weeks, and 12 weeks. A significant improvement in the VAS (p < 0.001), RMS (p < 0.001), and most of the SF-36 subgroup scores (p < 0.05) and most of the FAOS subgroup scores (p < 0.05) at 4 and 12 weeks after treatment was achieved in both groups. Besides, there was no significant difference in VAS (p > 0.05) and RMS (p > 0.05) between the groups. FAOS symptoms (p = 0.022) and quality of life (p = 0.038) subgroups were higher in the placebo group at 12 weeks. Significant improvements were observed in dynamic pedographic measurements in the HILT group (p < 0.05), and dynamic measurement values were significantly higher in the HILT group compared to placebo group (p < 0.05). Although the evaluation parameters, except dynamic pedographic measurements, have improved in both groups, our study results showed no superiority of HILT over placebo. To conclude, when the main complaint is pain in patients, only exercise therapy can be an economical, practical, and reliable treatment.

Effectiveness of Four Different Treatment Modalities in the Treatment of Chronic Plantar Fasciitis During a 36-Month Follow-Up Period: A Randomized Controlled Trial

No consensus has been reached about the best treatment method of plantar fasciitis and the results of the treatment methods have been inconsistent. The objective of the present study was to compare the therapeutic effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy, platelet-rich plasma injection, local corticosteroid injection, and prolotherapy for the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis using a randomized, controlled, prospective study. We performed a randomized controlled prospective clinical study of 4 groups. The first group received extracorporeal shock wave therapy, the second group received prolotherapy, the third group received platelet-rich plasma injection, and the fourth group received a local corticosteroid injection. The study included 158 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of chronic plantar fasciitis with a symptomatic heel spur. The clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale and Revised Foot Function Index. At the end of the follow-up period, the mean visual analog scale scores for all 4 groups were similar to the mean visual analog scale scores before treatment. At the end of the follow-up period, no significant improvement was noted in the Revised Foot Function Index score in any of the groups. The corticosteroid injection was more effective in the first 3 months and extracorporeal shock wave therapy was an effective treatment method in the first 6 months in regard to pain. The corticosteroid injection lost its effectiveness during the follow-up period. The effect of prolotherapy and platelet-rich plasma was seen within 3 to 12 months; however, at the 36-month follow-up point, no differences were found among the 4 treatments.

Comparison of Plantar Fasciitis Injected With Platelet-Rich Plasma vs Corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Plantar fasciitis is one of the most common causes of heel pain. This prospective study compared the efficacy of local injection of corticosteroids vs platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of plantar fasciitis.

METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups of 40 each (group A and group B). Patients were treated with local corticosteroid injection in group A and autologous PRP injection in group B. Clinical assessment was done prior to the injection and at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months following the injection, which included visual analog pain scale, subjective rating using the modified Roles and Maudsley score, functional outcome score by the Foot and Ankle Outcome Instrument (FAI) core scale, and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scale. Radiological assessment was done by measuring the thickness of the plantar fascia using ultrasonography. The mean age, sex, and body mass index of both groups were comparable.

RESULTS

Postinjection, there was significant improvement of visual analog score, modified Roles and Maudsley score, FAI core scale, AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score, and plantar fascia thickness in both the groups. However, with the numbers available, no significant difference in improvement could be detected between the above-mentioned variables in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

We found that the treatment of plantar fasciitis with steroid or PRP injection was equally effective.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective randomized comparative series.

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.

Extracorporeal shock-wave therapy effectively reduces calcaneal spur length and spur-related pain in overweight and obese patients

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the effects of extra corporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT) on the calcaneal spur length and pain severity in overweight and obese patients with symptomatic calcaneal spur.

METHODS

In eighty patients with symptomatic calcaneal spur, ESWT was administered on days 0 and 7, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores and calcaneal spur lengths (CSLs) before and 3 months later after treatment were recorded. A lateral heel radiograph was used for computer-aided linear measurements of CSL.

RESULTS

Of 80 patients, 59 (73.7%) were female and 21 were male (26.3%); age was 45.9 ± 8.3 years; BMI was 31.6 ± 4.4 kg/m2; and symptom duration was 2.3 ± 2.4 years. The CSL and VAS score after treatment were significantly lower than those before treatment (CSL before vs. after: 5.7 ± 1.0 vs. 4.4 ± 0.9, p = 0.001; VAS score before vs. after: 8.3 ± 1.4 vs. 4.6 ± 2.2; p = 0.03). The CSLs before and after treatment had a significant strong correlation (r = 0.832, p = 0.001). The VAS scores before and after treatment presented a significant mild correlation (r = 0.242, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In overweight and obese patients with symptomatic calcaneal spur, ESWT reduces the CSL and pain severity during a follow-up of three-month duration.

Extracorporeal shock wave for chronic proximal plantar fasciitis: 225 patients with results and outcome predictors

Plantar fasciitis can be a chronic and disabling cause of foot pain in the adult population. For refractory cases, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been proposed as therapeutic option to avoid the morbidity of surgery. We hypothesized that the success of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis is affected by patient-related factors. A retrospective review of 225 patients (246 feet) who underwent consecutive ESWT treatment by a single physician at our institution between July 2002 and July 2004 was performed. Subjects were included only if they had plantar fasciitis for more than 6 months and failure to response to at least 5 conservative modalities. Patients were evaluated prospectively with health questionnaires, Roles and Maudsley scores, and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle and hindfoot scores at regular intervals. Follow-up was 30.2 +/- 8.7 months post procedure. Multivariable analysis was performed to assess factors leading to successful outcomes. Success rates of 70.7% at 3 months and 77.2% at 12 months were noted in this population. Previous cortisone injections, body mass index, duration of symptoms, presence of bilateral symptoms, and plantar fascia thickness did not influence the outcome of ESWT. The presence of diabetes mellitus, psychological issues, and older age were found to negatively influence ESWT outcome. Whereas many factors have been implicated in the development of plantar fasciitis, only diabetes mellitus, psychological issues, and age were found to negatively influence ESWT outcome.

LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE

2.

Comparison of two extracorporeal shock wave therapy techniques for the treatment of painful subcalcaneal spur. A randomized controlled study

Objective: To describe and compare two extracorporeal shock wave therapy techniques for the treatment of painful subcalcaneal spur.

Design: Random assignment to two groups of treatment with two and eight months follow-up.

Setting: The data were collected in outpatients.

Subjects: Forty-five subjects with a history of at least six months of heel pain were studied.

Interventions: Each subject received a three-session ultrasound-guided extracorporeal shock wave therapy (performed weekly). Perpendicular technique was used in group A (n=22, mean age 59.3 ± 12 years) and tangential technique was used in group B (n= 23, mean age 58.8 ± 12.3 years).

Main outcome measures: Mayo Clinical Scoring System was used to evaluate each subject before the treatment and at two and eight months follow-up.

Results: Mayo Clinical Scoring System pretreatment scores were homogeneous between the groups (group A 55.2 ±18.7; group B 53.5 ± 20; P>0.05). In both groups there was a significant (P<0.05) increase in the Mayo Clinical Scoring System score at two months (group A 83.9 ± 13.7; group B 80 ± 15,8) and eight months (group A 90 ± 10.5; group B 90.2 ±8.7) follow-up. No significant differences were obtained comparing the Mayo Clinical Scoring System scores of the two groups at two and eight months follow-up.

Conclusions: There was no difference between the two techniques of using extracorporeal shock wave therapy. The tangential technique was found to be better tolerated as regards treatment-induced pain, allowing higher energy dosages to be used.

Retrospective evaluation of radiotherapy in plantar fasciitis

Plantar fasciitis is a common painful syndrome that is usually treated by irradiation with a fraction dose (fd) of 1 Gy up to a total dose (TD) of 6 Gy according to clinical experience. By analysing our experiences with numerous former patients, we have attempted to find the relationship between dose and effect. To evaluate the effectiveness of radiotherapy and assess the impact of fd and TD in plantar fasciitis radiotherapy, we assessed 1624 irradiations (856 patients) performed using a fd of 1-3 Gy and a TD of 1-45 Gy. Analysis was carried out on the 623 irradiations (327 patients) for which complete follow-up data were available. The mean follow-up period was 74 months. The following parameters were evaluated: pain relief level; period of anaesthetic effect preservation after treatment; presence of pain and the timing of its appearance; and the intake of analgesic drugs at the last follow-up. After treatment, 48% of the patients reported a lack of pain, 21% reported pain relief greater than 50% and 17% reported pain relief less than 50%. The mean pain relief duration was 72 months. The last follow-up found that pain at rest afflicted 25% of the patients, and pain during walking afflicted 32%. A dose-effect relationship was not found. In conclusion, radiotherapy is an effective treatment for plantar fasciitis. A fd of 1.5 Gy and TD of 9 Gy should probably not be exceeded.

Plantar fasciopathy and orthotripsy: the effect of prior cortisone injection

BACKGROUND

Corticoid steroid injection into the heel is a popular treatment method for painful heel syndromes. However, the positive results usually are short term. Extracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESW) has been shown to have a more permanent effect. We evaluated 555 patients who received ESW using the device Ossa Tron Orthotripsy (Health Tronics, Surgical Services, Marietta, GA) relative to antecedent cortisone heel injection.

METHODS

Before ESW, 312 patients (56%) received one or more cortisone injections into the heel, and 243 patients (44%) had never received a cortisone injection.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-four patients (75%) who had antecedent injection or injections had positive outcomes after ESW. One hundred sixty-eight patients (69%) without prior heel injection had positive responses after ESW.

CONCLUSION

The prior injection of cortisone did not affect the likelihood of a positive response to ESW. Similarly, the absence of prior injection of cortisone did not affect the outcome.

Ultrasonographic evaluation at 6-month follow-up of plantar fasciitis after extracorporeal shock wave therapy

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) on the ultrasonographic appearance of chronically painful, proximal plantar fasciitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-two patients with a unilateral proximal plantar fasciitis were prospectively enrolled after unsuccessful conservative treatment lasting 6 months. The contralateral plantar fascia was used as the control. ESWT (3x3000 shock waves/session of 0.2 mJ/mm2) was performed at weekly intervals. The thickness of the plantar fascia was measured ultrasonographically about 2 cm distal of the medial calcaneal tuberosity. Pain estimation on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the comfortable walking time were recorded. No local anaesthesia was applied. Follow-up was done at 6, 12 and 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Before ESWT, the plantar fasciitis side was ultrasonographically significantly thicker than the control side (p<0.05), whereas 6 months after ESWT, the thickness of the fascia was no longer significantly different. The decrease in thickness of the plantar fasciitis side was significant (p<0.05). Pain during activities of daily living decreased by 79% according to the VAS, and the comfortable walking time increased, both significantly (p<0.01). In patients with little pain (VAS<30), the thickness of the plantar fasciitis side was significantly less (p<0.01) compared with patients who still suffered more pain (VAS>30).

CONCLUSION

After ESWT, the thickness of the plantar fascia in patients with plantar fasciitis decreased, pain and walking time improved (all significantly).

Comparison of two ultrasonographic localization techniques for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis with extracorporeal shock wave therapy: a randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To describe and compare two ultrasonographic localization techniques for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis with extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT).

DESIGN

Forty-one subjects selected through clinical examination were randomly assigned to two groups of treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Each subject received a three-session ultrasound-guided ESWT (performed weekly). Lateral tangential focusing was used in group A, whereas back tangential focusing was used for group B.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Total Elbow Scoring System (TESS) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) were used to evaluate each subject before the treatment and at six months follow-up.

RESULTS

TESS and VAS pretreatment scores were homogeneous between the groups (p > 0.05). In both groups there was a significant (p < 0.05) increase in the TESS score and a decrease in the VAS score but there was no resolution of the pain. TESS and VAS follow-up scores were homogeneous between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference between the two techniques of using ESWT.