Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 11, pp 3645–3652 | Cite as

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Is Effective In Treating Chronic Plantar Fasciitis: A Meta-analysis of RCTs

  • Adeel Aqil
  • Muhammad R. S. Siddiqui
  • Matthew Solan
  • David J. Redfern
  • Vivek Gulati
  • Justin P. Cobb
Survey

Abstract

Background

Plantar fasciitis is the most common cause of heel pain. It may remain symptomatic despite conservative treatment with orthoses and analgesia. There is conflicting evidence concerning the role of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in the management of this condition.

Questions/purposes

We investigated whether there was a significant difference in the change of (1) VAS scores and (2) Roles and Maudsley scores from baseline when treated with ESWT and placebo. Specifically we compared overall improvement from baseline composite VAS, reduction in overall VAS pain, success rate of improving overall VAS pain by 60%, success rate of improving VAS pain by 60% when taking first steps, doing daily activities, and during application of a pain pressure meter.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched from January 1980 to January 2013 and a double extraction technique was used to obtain relevant studies. Studies had to be prospective randomized controlled trials on adults and must not have used local anesthesia as part of their treatment protocol. Studies must have specifically recruited patients who continued to be symptomatic despite a minimum of 3 months of conservative treatments. All papers were assessed regarding their methodologic quality and a meta-analysis performed. Seven prospective randomized controlled trials were included in this study. There were 369 patients included in the placebo group and 294 in the ESWT group.

Results

After ESWT, patients had better composite VAS scores (random effects model, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.05, 0.72; z = 2.27). They also had a greater reduction in their absolute VAS scores compared with placebo (random effects model, SMD = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.34, 0.85; z = 4.64). Greater success of improving heel pain by 60% was observed after ESWT when taking first steps (random effects model, risk ratio [RR] = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04, 1.62; z = 2.29) and during daily activities (random effects model, RR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.13, 1.84; z = 2.96). Subjective measurement of pain using a pressure meter similarly favored ESWT (random effects model, RR = 1.37, 95% CI, 1.06, 1.78; z = 2.41). There was a significant difference in the change to “excellent - good” Roles and Maudsley scores in favor of the ESWT group.

Conclusions

ESWT is a safe and effective treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis refractory to nonoperative treatments. Improved pain scores with the use of ESWT were evident 12 weeks after treatment. The evidence suggests this improvement is maintained for up to 12 months. We recommend the use of ESWT for patients with substantial heel pain despite a minimum of 3 months of nonoperative treatment.

References

  1. 1.
    ACFAS Clinical Practice Guideline Heel Pain Panel. The diagnosis and treatment of heel pain. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2001;40:329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkins D, Crawford F, Edwards J, Lambert M. A systematic review of treatments for the painful heel. Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999;38:968–973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buchbinder R. Clinical practice: plantar fasciitis. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2159–2166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang KV, Chen SY, Chen WS, Tu YK, Chien KL. Comparative effectiveness of focused shock wave therapy of different intensity levels and radial shock wave therapy for treating plantar fasciitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:1259–1268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crawford F, Thomson C. Interventions for treating plantar heel pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;3:CD000416.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerdesmeyer L, Frey C, Vester J, Maier M, Weil L Jr, Weil L Sr, Russlies M, Stienstra J, Scurran B, Fedder K, Diehl P, Lohrer H, Henne M, Gollwitzer H. Radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy is safe and effective in the treatment of chronic recalcitrant plantar fasciitis: results of a confirmatory randomized placebo-controlled multicenter study. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36:2100–2109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gollwitzer H, Diehl P, von Korff A, Rahlfs VW, Gerdesmeyer L. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for chronic painful heel syndrome: a prospective, double blind, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of a new electromagnetic shock wave device. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2007;46:348–537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibrahim MI, Donatelli RA, Schmitz C, Hellman MA, Buxbaum F. Chronic plantar fasciitis treated with two sessions of radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy. Foot Ankle Int. 2010;31:391–397.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Malay DS, Pressman MM, Assili A, Kline JT, York S, Buren B, Heyman ER, Borowsky P, LeMay C. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy versus placebo for the treatment of chronic proximal plantar fasciitis: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, multicenter intervention trial. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2006;45:196–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marks W, Jackiewicz A, Witkowski Z, Kot J, Deja W, Lasek J. Extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT) with a new-generation pneumatic device in the treatment of heel pain: a double blind randomised controlled trial. Acta Orthop Belg. 2008;74: 98–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. QUOROM Group. Br J Surg. 2000;87:1448–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    PRISMA. Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Available at: http://www.prisma-statement.org/statement.htm. Accessed November 23, 2012.
  14. 14.
    Roles NC, Maudsley RH. Radial tunnel syndrome: resistant tennis elbow as a nerve entrapment. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1972;54:499–508.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rompe JD. Plantar fasciopathy. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2009;17:100–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rompe JD, Buch M, Gerdesmeyer L, Haake M, Loew M, Maier M, Heine J. [Musculoskeletal shock wave therapy: current database of clinical research][in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2002;140:267–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rompe JD, Decking J, Schoellner C, Nafe B. Shock wave application for chronic plantar fasciitis in running athletes: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31:268–275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rompe JD, Furia J, Weil L, Maffulli N. Shock wave therapy for chronic plantar fasciopathy. Br Med Bull. 2007;81–82:183–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    SIGN. Methodology checklist 1: systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Available at: http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/50/checklist1.html. Accessed November 23, 2012.
  20. 20.
    Speed CA, Nichols D, Wies J, Humphreys H, Richards C, Burnet S, Hazleman BL. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for plantar fasciitis: a double blind randomised controlled trial. J Orthop Res. 2003;21:937–940.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Theodore GH, Buch M, Amendola A, Bachmann C, Fleming LL, Zingas C. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the treatment of plantar fasciitis. Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25:290–297.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weil LS Jr, Roukis TS, Weil LS, Borrelli AH. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis: indications, protocol, intermediate results, and a comparison of results to fasciotomy. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2002;41:166–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adeel Aqil
    • 1
  • Muhammad R. S. Siddiqui
    • 2
  • Matthew Solan
    • 3
  • David J. Redfern
    • 4
  • Vivek Gulati
    • 1
  • Justin P. Cobb
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College LondonCharing Cross HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of SurgerySt Mark’s HospitalHarrowUK
  3. 3.Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic SurgeryRoyal Surrey County HospitalBrightonUK
  4. 4.Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic SurgeryRoyal Sussex County HospitalBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations