PURPOSE: To compare the results of Extracorporeal shock wave (ESWT) with a modified endoscopic plantar fasciotomy technique for the treatment of recalcitrant heel pain. METHOD:Sixty-five patients suffering from chronic heel pain that failed to respond to standard nonoperative methods were randomized to undergo either high-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy (group 1), or modified endoscopic plantar fasciotomy (group 2). The primary outcome measure was the reduction of pain in the two groups from base line to month three post intervention at the first few steps in the morning. In addition, patients' functions were assessed using American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle-Hindfoot Scale (AOFAS) at week three, month three, and month 12 post-intervention, and finally, Roles and Maudsley scores were assessed. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat and involved all patients who were randomly assigned. RESULTS: Both groups achieved improvement from the base line at 3 weeks, 3 months and 12 months post-intervention. The success rate (Roles and Maudsley score excellent and good) in the ESWT group at month 12 was 70.6 %, while in the fasciotomy group, the success rate was 77.4 % (p = 0.19). CONCLUSION: In patients who had experienced failure of conventional treatment of plantar fasciopathy, bothendoscopic plantar fasciotomy and shock wave therapy can be potentially helpful lines of management.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the results of Extracorporeal shock wave (ESWT) with a modified endoscopic plantar fasciotomy technique for the treatment of recalcitrant heel pain. METHOD: Sixty-five patients suffering from chronic heel pain that failed to respond to standard nonoperative methods were randomized to undergo either high-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy (group 1), or modified endoscopic plantar fasciotomy (group 2). The primary outcome measure was the reduction of pain in the two groups from base line to month three post intervention at the first few steps in the morning. In addition, patients' functions were assessed using American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle-Hindfoot Scale (AOFAS) at week three, month three, and month 12 post-intervention, and finally, Roles and Maudsley scores were assessed. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat and involved all patients who were randomly assigned. RESULTS: Both groups achieved improvement from the base line at 3 weeks, 3 months and 12 months post-intervention. The success rate (Roles and Maudsley score excellent and good) in the ESWT group at month 12 was 70.6 %, while in the fasciotomy group, the success rate was 77.4 % (p = 0.19). CONCLUSION: In patients who had experienced failure of conventional treatment of plantar fasciopathy, both endoscopic plantar fasciotomy and shock wave therapy can be potentially helpful lines of management.
Authors: John A Ogden; Richard G Alvarez; Richard L Levitt; Jeffrey E Johnson; Marie E Marlow Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Christoph Schmitz; Nikolaus B M Császár; Stefan Milz; Matthias Schieker; Nicola Maffulli; Jan-Dirk Rompe; John P Furia Journal: Br Med Bull Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 4.291