4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Shockwave therapy for chronic proximal plantar fasciitis: A meta-analysis

期刊

FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 301-308

出版社

AMER ORTHOPAEDIC FOOT & ANKLE SOC, INC
DOI: 10.1177/107110070202300402

关键词

plantar fasciitis; extracorporeal shockwave; therapy; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Utilizing meta-analysis, the authors have reviewed the available literature to assess the biologic and therapeutic effects of shockwaves on patients with chronic plantar fasciitis and the credibility of these published studies. Methods: Meta-analysis is a systematic method for statistical analysis that combines data from various independent studies, allowing the assessment of potential benefits of various treatments when conclusions based on individual studies may be difficult to evaluate. We hypothesized that extracorporeal shockwave therapy provided a reasonable nonoperative therapeutic alternative to surgical intervention in the treatment of chronic proximal plantar fasciitis. Results: Eight of 20 published studies fulfilled our type A to C criteria for acceptable studies of sufficient duration (one year or more after treatment). These eight studies involved 840 patients, with success rates of as much as 88%. The other 12 studies had methodological variables or lack of appropriate follow-up data that would limit their validity, although the success rates were comparable to the A to C studies. Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that the directed application of shockwaves to the enthesis of the plantar fascia at the inferior calcaneus is a safe and effective nonsurgical method for treating chronic, recalcitrant heel pain syndrome that has been refractory to other commonly used nonoperative therapies. The results suggest that this therapeutic procedure should be considered before any surgical intervention, and may be preferable prior to cortisone injection, which has a recognized risk of rupture of the plantar fascia and a frequent recurrence of symptoms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据