Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the treatment of plantar fasciitis

One hundred fifty patients were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, prospective, double-blind study to assess the clinical safety and effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) using the Dornier Epos Ultra for the treatment of plantar fasciitis. The Active Group was treated with electromagnetically generated shocks using ultrasound guidance during a single therapy session. The Control Group received a sham treatment under similar clinical conditions. The groups were demographically similar with respect to age, height, and weight. The average duration of symptoms was nearly 2 years in both groups. All patients were evaluated by the visual analog scale for pain, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scores, Roles and Maudsley Score, SF-12 health status questionnaire, and physical examination. The Active Group reported 56% success at 3 months and 94% success at 12 months posttreatment. The Control Group reported 47% success at 3 months posttreatment. Twelve-month data were not collected for the Control Group as they were unblinded at 3 months and offered treatment. ESWT represents a safe treatment option for chronic proximal plantar fasciitis.     

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 (3×3000 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).     

Repetitive low-energy shock wave application without local anesthesia is more efficient than repetitive low-energy shock wave application with local anesthesia in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether application of local anesthesia (LA) interferes with clinical efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) for chronic plantar fasciitis. Aims: To evaluate the effect of local anesthesia on the clinical outcome after repetitive low-energy ESWT for chronic plantar fasciitis. METHODS: Eighty-six patients with chronic plantar fasciitis were randomly assigned to receive either low-energy ESWT without LA, given weekly for three weeks (Group I, n=45; 3 x 2000 pulses, total energy flux density per shock 0.09 mJ/mm2) or identical ESWT with LA (Group II, n=41). Primary outcome measure was: Reduction of pain from baseline to month 3 post-treatment in a pain numeric rating scale [0-10 points] during first steps in the morning, evaluated by an independent blinded observer. Calculations were based on intention-to-treat. RESULTS: No difference was found between the groups at baseline. At 3 months, the average pain score was 2.2+/-2.0 points for patients of Group I, and 4.1+/-1.5 points for patients of Group II. The mean between-group difference was 1.9 points (95% CI: [1.1-2.7 points]; P<.001). Significantly more patients of Group I achieved 50% reduction of pain compared to Group II (67% vs 29%, P<.001). CONCLUSION: ESWT as applied should be done without LA in patients suffering from chronic heel pain. LA applied prior treatment reduced the efficiency of low-energy ESWT.     

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in patients with chronic proximal plantar fasciitis: a 2-year follow-up

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in patients with chronically painful proximal plantar fasciitis with a further conventional conservative treatment. Forty-seven patients (49 feet) with a previously unsuccessful nonsurgical treatment of at least 6 months were randomized to two groups. Heel cups had to be worn throughout the study. Group 1 (25 heels) was treated immediately with three sessions of ESWT (3000 shock waves/session of 0.2 mJ/mm2) at weekly intervals. The patients of group 2 (24 heels) continued nonsurgical treatment (iontophoresis with diclofenac and an oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) for 12 weeks. After this period they were treated using the protocol of group 1. No significant difference of pain and walking time after further nonsurgical treatment (3 months) was seen in group 2. At 12 weeks after ESWT, the pain estimation on the visual analogue scale (VAS) for activities of daily living diminished significantly by 62.9% in group 1 and by 63.0% in group 2. The comfortable walking time had increased significantly in both groups. Two years after ESWT, pain during activities of daily living decreased by 94% in group 1 and by 90% in group 2 on the VAS and the comfortable walking time had increased significantly in both groups.     

Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) in patients with chronic proximal plantar fasciitis

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) in patients with chronically painful proximal plantar fasciitis with a conventional conservative treatment consisting of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, heel cup, orthoses and/or shoe modifications, local steroid injections and electrotherapy. Forty-seven patients (49 feet) with a previously unsuccessful conservative treatment of at least six months were randomized to two groups. Treatment of Group 1 (25 heels) started immediately with three sessions of ESWT (3000 shockwaves/session of 0.2 mJ/mm2) at weekly intervals. In the patients of Group 2 (24 heels) treatment was continued for 12 weeks. After this period they were treated using the protocol of Group 1. No significant difference of pain and walking time after further non-ESWT treatment (three months) was seen. Six months after ESWT pain decreased by 64% to 88% on the visual analog scale (VAS) and the comfortable walking time had increased significantly in both groups.     

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for plantar fasciitis. A double blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is an increasingly popular therapeutic approach in the management of a number of tendinopathies. Benefit has been shown in calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff, but evidence for its use in non-calcific disorders is limited. AIMS: To perform a double blind randomised controlled trial of moderate dose shock wave therapy in plantar fasciitis. METHODS: Adults with plantar fasciitis for at least 3 months were randomised to receive either active treatment (0.12 mJ/mm(2)) or sham therapy, monthly for 3 months. Pain in the day, nocturnal pain and morning start-up pain were assessed at baseline, before each treatment and 1 and 3 months after completion of therapy. RESULTS: Eighty-eight subjects participated and no differences existed between the groups at baseline. At 3 months, 37% of the subjects in the ESWT group and 24% in the sham group showed a positive response (50% improvement from baseline) with respect to pain. Positive responses in night pain occurred in 41% and 31% in the ESWT and sham groups, respectively. Positive responses in start-up pain occurred in 37% and 36% in the ESWT and sham groups, respectively. Both groups showed significant improvement over the course of the study, but no statistically significant difference existed between the groups with respect to the changes were seen in any of the outcome measures over the 6-month period. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be no treatment effect of moderate dose ESWT in subjects with plantar fasciitis. Efficacy may be highly dependent upon machine types and treatment protocols. Further research is needed to develop evidence based recommendation for the use ESWT in musculoskeletal complaints.     

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Clinical Outcomes of Laser Therapy,Ultrasound Therapy,and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

We determined and compared the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT), therapeutic ultrasound (US) therapy, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We performed a randomized, prospective, comparative clinical study. A total of 60 patients with a diagnosis of chronic plantar fasciitis were divided randomly into 3 treatment groups: group 1 underwent 15 sessions of LLLT (8 J/cm²; 830 nm); group 2 underwent 15 sessions of continuous US (1 mHz; 2 W/cm²); and group 3 underwent 3 sessions of ESWT (2000 shocks). All patients were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), heel tenderness index (HTI), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scale, Roles–Maudsley score, and MRI before and 1 month after treatment. The primary efficacy success criterion was the percentage of decrease in heel pain of >60% from baseline at 1 month after treatment for ≥2 of the 3 heel pain (VAS) measurements. Significant improvement was measured using the mean VAS, AOFAS scale, and HTI scores for all 3 groups. The thickness of the plantar fascia had decreased significantly on MRI in all 3 groups. The treatment success rate was 70.6% in the LLLT group, 65% in the ESWT group, and 23.5% in the US group. LLLT and ESWT proved significantly superior to US therapy using the primary efficacy criterion (p = .006 and p = .012, respectively), with no significant difference between the LLLT and ESWT groups (p > .05). The treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis with LLLT and ESWT resulted in similar outcomes and both were more successful than US therapy in pain improvement and functional outcomes.     

The Impact of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy and Dry Needling Combination on Pain and Functionality in the Patients Diagnosed with Plantar Fasciitis

This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and dry needling (DN) combination on pain and functionality in plantar fasciitis. Forty patients who were clinically diagnosed with plantar fasciitis were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. The ESWT-DN group was applied 3 sessions of ESWT to plantar fascia and DN to the trigger points in the gastrosoleus muscles. The ESWT group was applied only ESWT treatment to plantar fascia. We used visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and a pressure algometer for pressure pain threshold. The functionality of the patients was evaluated with Foot Function Index (FFI). Also, maximum painless standing time and maximum painless walking distance were recorded. All assessments were repeated twice; first, pretreatment and second 1 month after the treatment. In both groups, there were statistically significant improvements in VAS, pressure pain threshold, maximum painless standing time, maximum painless walking distance, and FFI's pain, disability, and activity limitation subscales scores (p ≤ .001). In intergroup comparison; it was showed that VAS scores, maximum painless standing time (p = .002), maximum painless walking distance (p ≤ .001), and FFI pain subscale scores (p = .034) were statistically superior in the ESWT-DN group. There was no statistically difference between the groups in pressure pain threshold (p = .132), FFI disability (p = .081), and FFI activity limitation subscale (p = .226) scores. ESWT and DN combination therapy in plantar fasciitis was seen to be superior in the pain scores. Further studies with larger patients’ groups and longer term results of this combination are needed for a better comparison.     

Dextrose prolotherapy versus radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis: A randomized,controlled clinical trial

In the recent years, prolotherapy is increasingly being used in the field of musculoskeletal medicine. However, few studies have investigated its effectiveness in plantar fasciitis (PF). The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided dextrose prolotherapy with radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in the treatment of chronic PF. This randomized controlled trial was conducted on 59 patients with chronic PF. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups receiving three sessions of radial ESWT (29 patients) vs. two sessions of ultrasound-guided intrafascial 2 cc dextrose 20% injection (30 patients). The following outcome measures were assessed before and then six weeks and 12 weeks after the treatments: pain intensity by visual analog scale (VAS), daily life and exercise activities by Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and the plantar fascia thickness by ultrasonographic imaging. The VAS and FAAM scales showed significant improvements of pain and function in both study groups 6 weeks and 12 weeks after the treatments. A significant reduction was noted for plantar fascia thickness at these intervals (all p < .05). The inter-group comparison revealed that except for the FAAM-sport subscale which favored ESWT, the interaction effects of group and time were not significant for other outcome measures. Dextrose prolotherapy has comparable efficacy to radial ESWT in reducing pain, daily-life functional limitation, and plantar fascia thickness in patients with PF. No serious adverse effects were observed in either group.Level of evidenceLevel I, randomized controlled trial.     

Preliminary experience of a single session of low-energy extracorporeal shock wave treatment for chronic plantar fasciitis

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of a single session of ultrasound- and biofeedback-assisted extracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESWT) in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 20 patients (22 heels) with symptomatic plantar fasciitis that did not respond to conservative treatment for at least 6 months were studied. Patients received a single session of low-energy, ultrasound- and patient feedback-guided ESWT. Visual analog scale (VAS) was used to compare pain intensity before treatment and at followup (72 +/- 15 days after treatment). RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in overall pain (VAS 5.5 +/- 1.8 vs. 3.3 +/- 2.7, p = 0.001), maximum pain (7.7 +/- 2.1 vs. 4.0 +/- 3.9, p = 0.008) and pain at activities of daily living (5.3 +/- 2.1 vs. 2.5 +/- 2.6, p = 0.018). Night pain decreased to a lesser extent (2.4 +/- 2.5 vs. 1.3 +/- 2.1, p = 0.317). ESWT improved symptoms in 16 heels, of which six were completely symptom-free at followup 2.4 months after treatment. Six patients experienced no change. Fourteen patients with pain localized to the heel and all male patients benefited from ESWT. No difference was noted for age, body mass index, duration, and severity of symptoms or previous treatment. CONCLUSION: Low-energy ESWT proved to be an effective treatment option for the majority of patients with chronic plantar fasciitis that failed to respond to conservative treatment. Predictive parameters for successful outcome are male gender and an easily detectable pain center at the heel.     

Shock wave therapy for recalcitrant plantar fasciitis with heel spur: a prospective randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study

AIM: Efficacy of low-energy shock wave therapy for recalcitrant plantar fasciitis. METHOD: 32 patients were randomly assigned into real and placebo ESWT groups, treatment comprised 1000 impulses of 0,08 mJ/mm 2 at 14 kV (OssaTron OSA 120, HMT AG, Switzerland) in 12 cases repeated after six weeks or placebo (energy-absorbing foil). Follow-up evaluation (19, 32 and 48 wks.) included specific questionnaire, clinical-functional examination and measurement of plantar pressure while walking (Emed AT-4. pedograph, Novel GmbH, Munich). Examiner and patients were blinded. RESULTS: 88 % of the treatment group were pain free or had good results. None of the placebo group were pain free, 33.3 % had good results (Roles and Maudsley Score). The treatment group showed significantly better outcome for morning and resting pain, pressure stamp-tolerance and walking ability. Pedography did not show a clear correlation between pain relief and load pattern. CONCLUSION: The results of this study corroborate the value of ESWT for recalcitrant plantar fascitis. As a non invasive technique with low side effects, it can complement the row of conservative treatments.     

Shock wave therapy for chronic proximal plantar fasciitis

Three hundred two patients with chronic heel pain caused by proximal plantar fasciitis were enrolled in a study to assess the treatment effects consequent to administration of electrohydraulicall-generated extracorporeal shock waves. Symptoms had been present from 6 months to 18 years. Each treated patient satisfied numerous inclusion and exclusion criteria before he or she was accepted into this study, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a randomized, double-blind evaluation of the efficacy of shock wave therapy for this disorder. Overall, at the predetermined evaluation period 3 months after one treatment, 56% more of the treated patients had a successful result by all four of the evaluation criteria when compared with the patients treated with a placebo. This difference was significant and corroborated the fact that this difference in the results was specifically attributable to the shock wave treatment, rather than any natural improvement caused by the natural history of the condition. The current study showed that the directed application of electrohydraulic-generated shock waves to the insertion of the plantar fascia onto the calcaneus is a safe and effective nonsurgical method for treating chronic, recalcitrant heel pain syndrome that has been present for at least 6 months and has been refractory to other commonly used nonoperative therapies. This technology, when delivered using the OssaTron (High Medical Technology, Kreuz-lingen, Switzerland), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for the treatment of chronic proximal plantar fasciitis. The results suggest that this therapeutic modality should be considered before any surgical options, and even may be preferable to cortisone injection, which has a recognized risk of rupture of the plantar fascia and recurrence of symptoms.     

Location modalities for focused extracorporeal shock wave application in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis

BACKGROUND: Focused extracorporeal shock waves (ESWT) has been used in the treatment of plantar fasciitis with heel spurs. The optimal location for administering treatment, however, has not been determined. The purpose of this study was to determine whether fluoroscopy-guided location of a heel spur or patient location of the maximal point of tenderness is more effective in administering ESWT. METHODS: In a prospective, examiner-blinded trial, 41 patients were randomized into two groups for treatment by ESWT: group 1, location of the heel spur for ESWT by fluoroscopy, and group 2, patient location for ESWT by maximal point of tenderness. Each group had three session of ESWT at 1-week intervals. The success rates between the two groups were assessed at 6 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the small number of patients in the study, patient location for positioning the focus in ESWT in treatment of plantar fasciitis with a heel spur is recommended.     

Extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT) with a new-generation pneumatic device in the treatment of heel pain. A double blind randomised controlled trial

Although low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is widely used to treat a variety of soft tissue disorders, no precise algorithm has been accepted in clinical management. Furthermore, the clinical use of a new generation pneumatic device has not yet been evaluated. We performed a double blind randomised controlled trial on a group of 25 patients with heel pain from chronic plantar fasciitis, to assess the efficacy of ESWT. The main outcome measure was the patients' subjective assessment of pain by means of a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Roles and Maudsley Score before ESWT, early after treatment and six months later. There appeared to be a significant placebo effect with low-energy ESWT in patients with heel pain, and there was also lack of evidence for the efficacy of ESWT when compared to sham therapy.     

Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Plus Rehabilitation for Patients With Chronic Plantar Fasciitis Might Reduce Pain and Improve Function but Still Not Lead to Increased Activity: A Case-Series Study With Multiple Outcome Measures

Plantar fasciitis is a common cause of plantar-aspect heel pain. Although many patients will improve, a proportion will have ongoing and sometimes debilitating symptoms. Evidence from randomized controlled trials has shown that extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) results in benefits in treating pain. However, uncertainties remain whether these benefits translate to improvements in overall function. The present prospective case series examined the results from 35 patients with chronic plantar fasciitis who had undergone a course of ESWT in addition to a graded rehabilitation program. Of the 35 subjects, 34% were male, and the median age was 50.9 years. The duration of symptoms before ESWT was 24 months. The results of the present case series demonstrated statistically significant improvements in measures of self-reported “average pain” from a median of 7.0 of 10 at baseline to 5.0 of 10 at 3 months (p < .001) and of “worst pain” from 9.0 of 10 at baseline to 7.0 of 10 at 3 months (p < .001). In addition, significant improvements were found in several validated patient-rated outcome measures of local foot/ankle function but not in overall markers of health, anxiety/depression scores, or activity levels, despite the improvements in pain. No statistically significant correlations were found between gender, age, or chronicity of symptoms and the improvements seen. No significant side effects occurred in the present study. The results of our series support the use of ESWT for patients with chronic plantar fasciitis for local pain symptoms; however, uncertainties remain regarding global benefits to health.     

冲击波联合富血小板血浆治疗跖筋膜炎的临床研究

目的探讨发散式体外冲击波疗法(extracorporeal shock wave therapy,ESWT)与富血小板血浆(platelet rich plasma,PRP)联合治疗慢性跖筋膜炎的临床疗效。方法前瞻性单中心随机对照研究,选取2017年1月至2018年12月因足跟痛于重庆大学附属三峡医院就诊并诊断为慢性跖筋膜炎的患者60例,其中男性19例,女性41例;年龄20~68岁,平均(44.56±10.68)岁。依照随机数字表法分为ESWT治疗组(E组)、PRP治疗组(P组)和ESWT-PRP联合治疗组(联合组),每组20例。比较三组患者治疗前及治疗结束后4、12、24周视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、改良足功能指数(revised footfunction index,FFI-R)。分别于治疗前及治疗结束后24周采用超声测量跖筋膜厚度。结果三组患者一般资料及治疗前VAS评分、FFI-R评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),治疗结束后VAS评分、FFI-R评分均较治疗前明显改善(P<0.05)。4周时联合组及E组优于P组(P<0.05),24周时联合组及P组优于E组(P<0.05)。治疗结束24周后三组患者跖筋膜厚度较治疗前均有明显改善(P<0.05),相关性分析发现VAS评分与跖筋膜厚度存在正相关性。所有患者均未出现严重不良反应。结论采用发散式ESWT与PRP联合方案治疗慢性跖筋膜炎安全、有效、起效快、并发症少、治疗效果维持时间长,值得临床研究与推广。     

Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Prolotherapy Versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Plantar Fasciitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) versus dextrose prolotherapy on pain and foot functions in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis with a prospective randomized-controlled trial. A total of 29 patients in whom conservative care failed were enrolled for the study after the clinical and ultrasonographic assessment. The patients were randomly assigned to receive ESWT (ESWT group, n = 15) or dextrose prolotherapy (dextrose prolotherapy group, n = 14). ESWT group received 1800 to 2000 focused shock waves (session of 0.20-0.30 mJ/mm² with a frequency of 4-6 Hz) followed by soft tissue 3000 to 3500 radial pulses (session of 1.8-3.0 bar with a frequency of 15-21 Hz). Dextrose prolotherapy group underwent an injection of 5 ml 15% dextrose solution with 2% lidocaine. ESWT and dextrose prolotherapy were repeated 3 times by 2 weeks apart. A 100-mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for overall and morning pain, Foot Function Index (FFI) and the Roles and Maudsley Scale score (RMS) were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after the last intervention. Overall VAS, Morning VAS, RMS and FFI scores improved significantly in both treatment groups at 6 weeks and 12 weeks compared to baseline (p < .001). Comparison of changes in overall VAS, Morning VAS, RMS and FFI scores did not show a significant difference between the groups at each time point (p > .05) In our study dextrose prolotherapy and ESWT had similar effectiveness in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis who have not respond to conservative care. The results showed ESWT and dextrose prolotherapy were not superior to each other     

Influence of local anesthesia and energy level on the clinical outcome of extracorporeal shock wave-treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of low energy extracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESWT) for chronic plantar fasciitis is discussed controversially. It is unclear whether the simultaneous application of local anesthesia (LA) interferes with clinical outcome. METHODS: 60 patients with a chronic plantar fasciitis were enrolled in a triple-arm (20 patients per group), prospective randomized and observer-blinded pilot trial. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either active ESWT without LA (;3 x 1 500 shocks, total energy flux density [EFD] per shock 0.09 mJ/mm(2) [Group A]), ESWT with LA (3 x 1 500 shocks, EFD 0.18 mJ/mm(2) per shock [Group B]) or ESWT with LA (3 x 1 500 shocks, EFD 0.09 mJ/mm(2) [Group C]). Main outcome measures were: pain during first stepps in the morning (measured on a 0-10 point visual analogue scale) and number of patients with > 50 % reduction of pain and no further therapy needed, measured at 6 weeks after the last ESWT. RESULTS: Group A improved in the VAS from 6.4 (SD: 1.7) to 2.2 (SD: 2.6) points, group B from 6.7 (SD: 1.5) to 4.1 (SD: 2.4) points, group C from 6.2 (SD: 1.6) to 3.8 (SD: 2.5) points. A reduction of pain of at least 50 % was achieved in 60 % of group A, in 36 % of group B and in 30 % of group C. Group A without LA showed a significantly higher improvement in the VAS and subjective evaluation than groups B (p = 0.007) and C (p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: At 6 weeks success rates after low-energy ESWT with local anesthesia were significantly lower than after identical low-energy ESWT without local anesthesia. Higher energy levels could not balance the disadvantage of this effect. LA significantly influenced the clinical results after low energy ESWT in a negative way. Blinding patients by LA in ESWT studies must therefore be considered a systematic error in study design.     

Extracorporeal shockwave therapy versus placebo for the treatment of chronic proximal plantar fasciitis: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, multicenter intervention trial.

Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of recalcitrant proximal plantar fasciitis. The objective of this investigation was to compare the outcomes of participants treated with a new ESWT device with those treated with placebo. A total of 172 volunteer participants were randomized in a 2:1 active-to-placebo ratio in this prospective, double-blind, multicenter trial conducted between October 2003 and December 2004. ESWT (n=115) or placebo control (n=57) was administered on a single occasion without local or systemic anesthesia or sedation, after which follow-up was undertaken. The primary outcomes were the blind assessor's objective, and the participant's subjective assessments of heel pain during the first 3 months of follow-up. Participants were also followed up to 1 year to identify any adverse outcomes that may have been related to the shockwave device. On the visual analog scale, the blind assessor's objective assessment of heel pain displayed a mean reduction of 2.51 in the shockwave group and 1.57 in the placebo group; this difference was statistically significant (P=.045). On the visual analog scale, the participant's self-assessment of heel pain displayed a mean reduction of 3.39 in the shockwave group and 1.78 in the placebo group; this difference was statistically significant (P<.001). No serious adverse events were observed at any time. It was concluded that ESWT was both efficacious and safe for participants with chronic proximal plantar fasciitis that had been unresponsive to exhaustive conservative treatment.     

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for plantar fasciitis

Shock wave therapy is quickly becoming a mainstay treatment for chronic recalcitrant plantar fasciitis, and many more applications for this therapy may exist. Many advances have been made in regard to this modality of treatment in just a few decades since it was first investigated in the 1950s. Much research has been conducted, revealing the physics and physiologic effect of shock wave therapy. Devices are now approved that produce shock waves for medicinal purposes by one of the three primary methods of shock wave generation. Studies and research are actively being reported and published that demonstrate shock wave therapy success rates comparable to those found in surgical intervention but without the risks inherent in surgery. In conclusion, ESWT has proved to be a viable treatment option for the intervention of chronic recalcitrant plantar fasciitis.