Search

Background: Shock-wave therapy (SWT) has been widely applied and proven to be an effective treatment in ameliorating symptoms of plantar fasciitis (PF). Ultrasound therapy (UT) is another common treatment of PF, and several researches have documented its advantages when compared to corticosteroid injection. Despite this, few studies have focused on comparing the use of SWT and UT in the treatment of PF. The purpose of our meta-analysis is to evaluate whether SWT is better than UT in managing PF, both in terms of ameliorating pain and improving functionality.Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify relevant articles that were published in Pubmed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, SpringerLink, Clinical Trials.gov and OVID from the databases' inception to October 2018. All studies comparing the efficacy of SWT and UT in terms of pain levels and functionality improvement were included. Data on the two primary outcomes were collected and analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3.Results: Five studies were included in the current meta-analysis. A significant difference in VAS score (MD = - 13.14, Cl - 14.07 to - 12.75 P < 0.00001, I2 = 100%) was noted between the SWT group and the UT group. No significant difference was seen in the AOFAS (MD = 3.19, Cl - 1.72 to 8.10 P = 0.20, I2 = 100%); FFI or PFPS score was not found significant difference either (SMD = - 1.17, Cl - 4.45 to 2.10 P = 0.48, I2 = 96%).Conclusions: The results from this meta-analysis highlight the effectiveness of both SWT and UT in the treatment of PF. Although inter-group differences were not significant, the VAS score was better improved in the SWT group, suggesting that SWT may be a superior alternative for the treatment of PF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Corticosteroid (CS) injections have been proven to be effective in ameliorating symptoms of plantar fasciitis. Shock-wave (SW) therapy is another common treatment of plantar fasciitis, and several meta-analyses have documented its advantages when compared to placebo treatment. Despite this, few studies have focused on comparing the use of CS and SW in the treatment of plantar fasciitis. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to assess whether SW is superior to CS in managing plantar fasciitis, both in terms of ameliorating pain as well as improving functionality.Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify relevant articles that were published in Pubmed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, SpringerLink, Clinical Trials.gov and OVID from the databases' inception to July 2018. All studies comparing the efficacy of SW and CS in terms of pain levels and functionality improvement were included. Data on the two primary outcomes were collected and analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3.Results: Six studies were included in the current meta-analysis. A significant difference in VAS score (MD = - 0.96, Cl - 1.28 to - 0.63, P < 0.00001, I2 = 96%) was noted between the SW group and the CS group. No significant difference was seen in the Mayo CSS or FFI or HFI or 100 Scoring System score at the 3 months follow-up (Chi2 = 0.62, I2 = 0%, P > 0.05).Conclusions: The clinical relevance of the present study is that both SW and CS were effective and successful in relieving pain and improving self-reported function in the treatment of plantar fasciitis at 3 months. Although inter-group differences were not significant, the VAS score was better improved in the SW group, highlighting that shock-wave therapy may be a better alternative for the management of chronic plantar fasciitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]