高强度激光疗法与体外冲击波疗法在治疗足底筋膜炎患者方面的比较:双盲随机临床试验。

IF 1.6 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Marzieh Zare Bidoki, Mohammad Reza Vafaeei Nasab, Amidodin Khatibi Aghda
{"title":"高强度激光疗法与体外冲击波疗法在治疗足底筋膜炎患者方面的比较:双盲随机临床试验。","authors":"Marzieh Zare Bidoki, Mohammad Reza Vafaeei Nasab, Amidodin Khatibi Aghda","doi":"10.30476/IJMS.2023.98042.2991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The most common cause of heel pain is plantar fasciitis (PF). Although conservative treatments relieve pain in more than 90% of patients, it may remain painful in some cases. This study aimed to compare High-intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy (ESWT) in patients with PF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this double-blinded randomized clinical trial (conducted in Yazd, Iran, from May 2020 to March 2021), patients were classified into two groups, including the ESWT and HILT, using online randomization. Nine sessions, three times a week for 3 weeks, were the treatment period in both groups. Visual Analogue Score (VAS), Heel Tenderness Index (HTI), and the SF36 questionnaire were compared and analyzed statistically at the beginning and 9 months after treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>38 patients (19 in each group) completed the study. Results showed that pain and patient satisfaction improved significantly 3 months after treatment. The VAS and HTI decreased 3 months after treatment in both groups, which was statistically significant (P<0.001). The SF36 score in both groups increased 3 months after treatment, and this increase was statistically significant (P<0.001). Although the two modalities were effective based on VAS, HTI, and SF36, a significant statistical difference was observed between them (P=0.03, P=0.006, P=0.002, respectively), and the HILT was more effective.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESWT and HILT decrease pain and increase patient satisfaction in PF. Besides, both methods are non-invasive and safe. However, there is a significant difference between them, and HILT is more effective. <b>Trial registration number:</b> IRCT20210913052465N1.</p>","PeriodicalId":14510,"journal":{"name":"Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10997849/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of High-intensity Laser Therapy with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy in the Treatment of Patients with Plantar Fasciitis: A Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Marzieh Zare Bidoki, Mohammad Reza Vafaeei Nasab, Amidodin Khatibi Aghda\",\"doi\":\"10.30476/IJMS.2023.98042.2991\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The most common cause of heel pain is plantar fasciitis (PF). Although conservative treatments relieve pain in more than 90% of patients, it may remain painful in some cases. This study aimed to compare High-intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy (ESWT) in patients with PF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this double-blinded randomized clinical trial (conducted in Yazd, Iran, from May 2020 to March 2021), patients were classified into two groups, including the ESWT and HILT, using online randomization. Nine sessions, three times a week for 3 weeks, were the treatment period in both groups. Visual Analogue Score (VAS), Heel Tenderness Index (HTI), and the SF36 questionnaire were compared and analyzed statistically at the beginning and 9 months after treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>38 patients (19 in each group) completed the study. Results showed that pain and patient satisfaction improved significantly 3 months after treatment. The VAS and HTI decreased 3 months after treatment in both groups, which was statistically significant (P<0.001). The SF36 score in both groups increased 3 months after treatment, and this increase was statistically significant (P<0.001). Although the two modalities were effective based on VAS, HTI, and SF36, a significant statistical difference was observed between them (P=0.03, P=0.006, P=0.002, respectively), and the HILT was more effective.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESWT and HILT decrease pain and increase patient satisfaction in PF. Besides, both methods are non-invasive and safe. However, there is a significant difference between them, and HILT is more effective. <b>Trial registration number:</b> IRCT20210913052465N1.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14510,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10997849/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30476/IJMS.2023.98042.2991\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30476/IJMS.2023.98042.2991","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:足跟疼痛最常见的原因是足底筋膜炎(PF)。尽管保守治疗可缓解 90% 以上患者的疼痛,但在某些病例中,疼痛仍会持续。本研究旨在比较高强度激光疗法(HILT)和体外冲击波疗法(ESWT)对足跟炎患者的治疗效果:在这项双盲随机临床试验(2020 年 5 月至 2021 年 3 月在伊朗亚兹德进行)中,采用在线随机分配法将患者分为两组,包括 ESWT 组和 HILT 组。两组的治疗时间均为 9 次,每周 3 次,每次 3 周。对治疗开始时和治疗后 9 个月的视觉模拟评分(VAS)、足跟触痛指数(HTI)和 SF36 问卷进行比较和统计分析:38名患者(每组19人)完成了研究。结果显示,治疗 3 个月后,疼痛和患者满意度明显改善。两组患者在治疗 3 个月后的 VAS 和 HTI 均有所下降,具有统计学意义(PC 结论:ESWT 和 HILT 可降低患者的疼痛和满意度:ESWT 和 HILT 可以减轻 PF 患者的疼痛,提高患者满意度。此外,这两种方法都是非侵入性和安全的。但两者之间存在明显差异,HILT更为有效。试验注册号:IRCT20210913052465N1。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of High-intensity Laser Therapy with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy in the Treatment of Patients with Plantar Fasciitis: A Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: The most common cause of heel pain is plantar fasciitis (PF). Although conservative treatments relieve pain in more than 90% of patients, it may remain painful in some cases. This study aimed to compare High-intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy (ESWT) in patients with PF.

Methods: In this double-blinded randomized clinical trial (conducted in Yazd, Iran, from May 2020 to March 2021), patients were classified into two groups, including the ESWT and HILT, using online randomization. Nine sessions, three times a week for 3 weeks, were the treatment period in both groups. Visual Analogue Score (VAS), Heel Tenderness Index (HTI), and the SF36 questionnaire were compared and analyzed statistically at the beginning and 9 months after treatment.

Results: 38 patients (19 in each group) completed the study. Results showed that pain and patient satisfaction improved significantly 3 months after treatment. The VAS and HTI decreased 3 months after treatment in both groups, which was statistically significant (P<0.001). The SF36 score in both groups increased 3 months after treatment, and this increase was statistically significant (P<0.001). Although the two modalities were effective based on VAS, HTI, and SF36, a significant statistical difference was observed between them (P=0.03, P=0.006, P=0.002, respectively), and the HILT was more effective.

Conclusion: ESWT and HILT decrease pain and increase patient satisfaction in PF. Besides, both methods are non-invasive and safe. However, there is a significant difference between them, and HILT is more effective. Trial registration number: IRCT20210913052465N1.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences
Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
84
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences (IJMS) is an international quarterly biomedical publication, which is sponsored by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. The IJMS intends to provide a scientific medium of com­muni­cation for researchers throughout the globe. The journal welcomes original clinical articles as well as clinically oriented basic science re­search experiences on prevalent diseases in the region and analysis of various regional problems.
×
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