PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Conservative treatments for plantar fasciitis have different levels of effectiveness, so it is necessary to personalize the therapeutic modality that improves the patients\' symptoms.
METHODS: A double-blinded randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate the short-term efficacy of a physical treatment in chronic plantar fasciitis, namely iontophoresis, compared with radial shockwave therapy. Heel pain, health status using the EuroQol-5D questionnaire, and fascia thickness measured with ultrasound were evaluated. In total, 127 patients were randomly selected for group A and treated with iontophoresis therapy (lidocaine 0.4% and dexamethasone 0.5%), or for group B, in which they were treated with radial shockwave therapy (EWST). Measurements were taken at baseline and at follow-up during the 5 weeks of the study.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed to the shockwave therapy group in respect to the final fascia thickness, and the VAS scale (p = 0.001). The differences between groups A and B showed that the shockwave group follow-up after 3 weeks experienced complete pain remission (1.0 ± 0.9; 95%CI 0.8-1.2) and after the 6-week follow-up, complete pain remission of plantar fasciitis was observed for both therapies. Patients had a better perception of the use of EWST at the end of the treatment, although in both groups it was satisfactory (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed a shorter-term effectiveness of shockwave treatment compared with the use of iontophoresis. However, both techniques were effective in satisfactorily reducing pain in this short period.
METHODS: A double-blinded randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate the short-term efficacy of a physical treatment in chronic plantar fasciitis, namely iontophoresis, compared with radial shockwave therapy. Heel pain, health status using the EuroQol-5D questionnaire, and fascia thickness measured with ultrasound were evaluated. In total, 127 patients were randomly selected for group A and treated with iontophoresis therapy (lidocaine 0.4% and dexamethasone 0.5%), or for group B, in which they were treated with radial shockwave therapy (EWST). Measurements were taken at baseline and at follow-up during the 5 weeks of the study.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed to the shockwave therapy group in respect to the final fascia thickness, and the VAS scale (p = 0.001). The differences between groups A and B showed that the shockwave group follow-up after 3 weeks experienced complete pain remission (1.0 ± 0.9; 95%CI 0.8-1.2) and after the 6-week follow-up, complete pain remission of plantar fasciitis was observed for both therapies. Patients had a better perception of the use of EWST at the end of the treatment, although in both groups it was satisfactory (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed a shorter-term effectiveness of shockwave treatment compared with the use of iontophoresis. However, both techniques were effective in satisfactorily reducing pain in this short period.
摘要：
保守治疗足底筋膜炎有不同程度的疗效,因此，有必要个性化的治疗方式，以改善患者的症状。
方法：设计了一项双盲随机临床试验，以评估慢性足底筋膜炎的物理治疗的短期疗效。即离子电渗疗法，与径向冲击波疗法相比。脚跟疼痛，使用EuroQol-5D问卷的健康状况，评估超声测量的筋膜厚度。总的来说,随机选择127例患者为A组，并接受离子电渗疗法（利多卡因0.4％和地塞米松0.5％），或者对于B组，其中他们接受了放射状冲击波治疗（EWST）。在研究的5周期间在基线和随访时进行测量。
结果：冲击波治疗组在最终筋膜厚度方面观察到统计学上的显着差异，和VAS量表(p=0.001)。A、B组间差异显示,冲击波组随访3周后疼痛完全缓解(1.0±0.9;95CI0.8-1.2),随访6周后,两种疗法均观察到足底筋膜炎的疼痛完全缓解.患者在治疗结束时对EWST的使用有更好的感知，尽管在两组中都令人满意（p=0.001）。
结论：这项研究的结果表明，与使用离子电渗疗法相比，冲击波治疗的短期有效性。然而,这两种技术在短时间内都能令人满意地减轻疼痛。
方法：设计了一项双盲随机临床试验，以评估慢性足底筋膜炎的物理治疗的短期疗效。即离子电渗疗法，与径向冲击波疗法相比。脚跟疼痛，使用EuroQol-5D问卷的健康状况，评估超声测量的筋膜厚度。总的来说,随机选择127例患者为A组，并接受离子电渗疗法（利多卡因0.4％和地塞米松0.5％），或者对于B组，其中他们接受了放射状冲击波治疗（EWST）。在研究的5周期间在基线和随访时进行测量。
结果：冲击波治疗组在最终筋膜厚度方面观察到统计学上的显着差异，和VAS量表(p=0.001)。A、B组间差异显示,冲击波组随访3周后疼痛完全缓解(1.0±0.9;95CI0.8-1.2),随访6周后,两种疗法均观察到足底筋膜炎的疼痛完全缓解.患者在治疗结束时对EWST的使用有更好的感知，尽管在两组中都令人满意（p=0.001）。
结论：这项研究的结果表明，与使用离子电渗疗法相比，冲击波治疗的短期有效性。然而,这两种技术在短时间内都能令人满意地减轻疼痛。
