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.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Clinical Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1177/02692155241253779
Irene Cortés-Pérez, Laura Moreno-Montilla, Alfonso Javier Ibáñez-Vera, Ángeles Díaz-Fernández, Esteban Obrero-Gaitán, Rafael Lomas-Vega
{"title":"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.","authors":"Irene Cortés-Pérez, Laura Moreno-Montilla, Alfonso Javier Ibáñez-Vera, Ángeles Díaz-Fernández, Esteban Obrero-Gaitán, Rafael Lomas-Vega","doi":"10.1177/02692155241253779","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL and PEDro, until April 2024, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1023-1043"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155241253779","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

与皮质类固醇注射相比,体外冲击波疗法对足底筋膜炎患者的疼痛、足底筋膜厚度和足部功能的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的比较体外冲击波与皮质类固醇注射对足底筋膜炎患者的疼痛、足底筋膜厚度和足部功能的疗效。其次,评估放射状体外冲击波和聚焦体外冲击波的疗效以及最合适的强度(高、中或低):数据来源:PubMed、SCOPUS、CINAHL 和 PEDro,截至 2024 年 4 月,符合《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南:比较体外冲击波与皮质类固醇注射对足底筋膜炎患者疼痛强度和敏感性、足底筋膜厚度和足部功能的疗效的随机对照试验。采用 PEDro 量表和 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具对方法学质量和偏倚风险进行了评估。使用标准化平均差异(SMD)及其 95% 置信区间(95%CI)计算汇总效应:结果:共纳入 16 项研究,涉及 1121 名患者,PEDro 评分平均为 6 分。三个月后,体外冲击波在减轻疼痛(SMD -0.6;95%CI -1.1至-0.11)和足底筋膜厚度(SMD -0.4;95%CI -0.8至-0.01)以及增加足部功能(SMD 0.27;95%CI 0.12至0.44)方面优于皮质类固醇注射。六个月后,体外冲击波在减轻疼痛(SMD -0.81;95%CI -1.6至-0.06)和增强足部功能(SMD 0.67;95%CI 0.45至0.89)方面更为有效。局部疼痛和轻微红斑是最常见的不良反应:体外冲击波是一种安全的疗法,在中期改善疼痛、足底筋膜厚度和足部功能方面比注射皮质类固醇更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
117
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信