| Literature DB >> 28042570 |
Ziying Wu1, Wei Yao1, Shiyi Chen1, Yunxia Li1.
Abstract
Purpose. To compare the results of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) for insertional Achilles tendinopathy (IAT) with or without Haglund's deformity. Methods. Between September 2014 and May 2015, all patients who underwent ESWT were retrospectively enrolled in this study. A total of 67 patients were available for follow-up and assigned into nondeformtiy group (n = 37) and deformtiy group (n = 30). Clinical outcomes were evaluated by VISA-A Score and 6-point Likert scale. Results. The VISA-A score increased in both groups, from 49.57 ± 9.98 at baseline to 83.86 ± 8.59 at 14.5 ± 7.2 months after treatment in nondeformity group (P < 0.001) and from 48.70 ± 9.38 at baseline to 67.78 ± 11.35 at 15.3 ± 6.7 months after treatment in deformity group (P < 0.001). However, there was a greater improvement in VISA-A Score for the nondeformity group compared with deformity group (P = 0.005). For the 6-point Likert scale, there were decreases from 3.92 ± 0.80 at baseline to 1.57 ± 0.73 at the follow-up time point in nondeformity group (P < 0.001) and from 4.0 ± 0.76 at baseline to 2.37 ± 1.03 at the follow-up time point in deformity group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in improvement of the 6-point Likert scale between both groups (P = 0.062). Conclusions. ESWT resulted in greater clinical outcomes in patients without Haglund's deformity compared with patients with Haglund's deformity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28042570 PMCID: PMC5155070 DOI: 10.1155/2016/6315846
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Flow chart of patients included in follow-up. Deformity: Haglund's deformity.
Figure 2Results of VISA-A score for both groups. A: at baseline in nondeformity group. B: at follow-up in nondeformity group. C: at baseline in deformity group. D: at follow-up in deformity group. P < 0.001.
Figure 3Results of 6-point Likert score for both groups. A: at baseline in nondeformity group. B: at follow-up in nondeformity group. C: at baseline in deformity group. D: at follow-up in deformity group. P < 0.001.
Participant demographic data of the study groups.
| Variable | Nondeformity group ( | Deformity group ( |
| 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean ± SD, y | 37.6 ± 9.2 | 35.8 ± 7.4 | 0.228 | −2.17–5.17 |
| Sex, mean ± SD, | 0.789 | 0.43–3.04 | ||
| Male | 21 | 18 | ||
| Female | 16 | 12 | ||
| Body mass index, mean ± SD, kg/m2 | 23.7 ± 2.0 | 22.9 ± 2.2 | 0.591 | −0.22–1.82 |
| Therapeutic side, mean ± SD, | 0.818 | 0.42–2.89 | ||
| left | 15 | 13 | ||
| right | 22 | 17 | ||
| Follow-up time, mean ± SD, months | 14.5 ± 7.2 | 15.3 ± 6.7 | 0.705 | −4.14–2.54 |
CI: confidence interval.
Clinical outcome scores for both groups.
| Outcome Score | Nondeformity group |
| 95% CI | Deformity group |
| 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Follow-up | Baseline | Follow-up | |||||
| VISA-A | 49.57 ± 9.98 | 83.86 ± 8.59 | <0.001 | 30.05–38.53 | 48.70 ± 9.38 | 67.78 ± 11.35 | <0.001 | 13.81–24.35 |
| 6-point Likert | 3.92 ± 0.80 | 1.57 ± 0.73 | <0.001 | 2.00–2.70 | 4.0 ± 0.76 | 2.37 ± 1.03 | <0.001 | 1.17–2.09 |
CI: confidence interval.
Comparison of differences in improvement of clinical outcome scores between nondeformity and deformity group.
| Improvement of clinical outcome scores | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nondeformity group | Deformity group |
| 95% CI | |
| VISA-A | 34.30 ± 11.96 | 19.08 ± 7.08 | 0.005 | 10.61–19.83 |
| 6-point Likert | 2.29 ± 0.90 | 2.00 ± 0.64 | 0.062 | −0.08–0.66 |
CI: confidence interval.
Figure 4Improvement of clinical scores between nondeformity and deformity group. A: improvement of VISA-A in nondeformity group. A′: improvement of VISA-A in deformity group. B: improvement of 6-point Likert score in nondeformity group. B′: improvement of 6-point Likert score in deformity group. P = 0.005.