Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-8
Efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave therapy,compared to corticosteroid injections,on pain,plantar fascia thickness and foot function in patients with plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
To compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shock waves versus corticosteroids injections on pain, thickness of plantar fascia and foot function in patients with plantar fasciitis. Secondarily, to assess the efficacy of radial and focused extracorporeal shock waves and the most appropriated intensity (high, medium or low).
Data sources
PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL and PEDro, until April 2024, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
Review methods
Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of extracorporeal shock waves versus corticosteroids injections on pain intensity and sensitivity, thickness of plantar fascia and foot function in patients with plantar fasciitis. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using PEDro Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Pooled effect was calculated using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI).
Results
Sixteen studies involving 1121 patients, showing a mean of 6 points in PEDro scale, were included. At three months, extracorporeal shock waves were better than corticosteroids injections in reducing pain (SMD −0.6; 95%CI −1.1 to −0.11) and thickness of the plantar fascia (SMD −0.4; 95%CI −0.8 to −0.01) and increasing foot function (SMD 0.27; 95%CI 0.12–0.44). At six months, extracorporeal shock waves are more effective in reducing pain (SMD −0.81; 95%CI −1.6 to −0.06) and increasing foot function (SMD 0.67; 95%CI 0.45–0.89). Local pain and slight erythema were the most frequent adverse events.
Conclusions
Extracorporeal shock waves are a safe therapy, presenting more efficacy than corticosteroids injections in improving pain, thickness of plantar fascia and foot function at mid-term.
RhimHCKwonJParkJ, et al.A systematic review of systematic reviews on the epidemiology, evaluation, and treatment of plantar fasciitis. Life2021; 11: 1287.
2.
RiddleDLSchappertSM. Volume of ambulatory care visits and patterns of care for patients diagnosed with plantar fasciitis: a national study of medical doctors. Foot Ankle Int2004; 25: 303–310.
3.
Crawford FThomson C. Interventions for treating plantar heel pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2003; (3): CD000416.
4.
BuchbinderR. Plantar fasciitis. N Engl J Med2004; 350: 2159–2166.
5.
GencHSaracogluMNacırB, et al.Long-term ultrasonographic follow-up of plantar fasciitis patients treated with steroid injection. Jt Bone Spine2005; 72: 61–65.
6.
Fernández-LaoCGaliano-CastilloNCantarero-VillanuevaI, et al.Analysis of pressure pain hypersensitivity, ultrasound image, and quality of life in patients with chronic plantar pain: a preliminary study. Pain Med2016; 17: 1530–1541.
7.
Alabau-DasiRNieto-GilPOrtega-AvilaAB, et al.Variations in the thickness of the plantar fascia after training based in training race. A pilot study. J Foot Ankle Surg2022; 61: 1230–1234.
8.
IrvingDBCookJLMenzHB. Factors associated with chronic plantar heel pain: a systematic review. J Sci Med Sport2006; 9: 11–22.
9.
Hamstra-WrightKLHuxel BlivenKCBayRC, et al.Risk factors for plantar fasciitis in physically active individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sport Health2021; 13: 296–303.
10.
OsborneJWAMenzHBWhittakerGA, et al.Muscle function and muscle size differences in people with and without plantar heel pain: a systematic review. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther2019; 49: 925–933.
11.
WaclawskiERBeachJMilneA, et al.Systematic review: plantar fasciitis and prolonged weight bearing. Occup Med2015; 65: 97–106.
12.
GaoRSunJZhangL, et al.Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive nonsurgical treatments for plantar fasciitis: a network meta-analysis of 30 randomized controlled trials. Pain Physician2021; 24: E955–E971.
13.
SchuitemaDGreveCPostemaK, et al.Effectiveness of mechanical treatment for plantar fasciitis: a systematic review. J Sport Rehabil2020; 29: 657–674.
14.
HyerCFVanCourtRBlockA. Evaluation of ultrasound-guided extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis. J Foot Ankle Surg2005; 44: 137–143.
15.
JohannsenFEHerzogRBMalmgaard-ClausenNM, et al.Corticosteroid injection is the best treatment in plantar fasciitis if combined with controlled training. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2019; 27: 5–12.
16.
WhittakerGAMunteanuSEMenzHB, et al.Effectiveness of foot orthoses versus corticosteroid injection for plantar heel pain: the SOOTHE randomized clinical trial. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther2019; 49: 491–500.
17.
SchulhoferSD. Short-term benefits of ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection in plantar fasciitis. Clin J Sport Med2013; 23: 83–84.
18.
Al-SiyabiZKaramMAl-HajriE, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy versus ultrasound therapy for plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus2022; 14: e20871.
19.
MeleseHAlamerAGetieK, et al.Extracorporeal shock wave therapy on pain and foot functions in subjects with chronic plantar fasciitis: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Disabil Rehabil2022; 44: 5007–5014.
20.
NazimB.Tengku YusofTSeowD, et al.Extracorporeal shockwave therapy for foot and ankle disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc; 112: 1–26. Epub ahead of print Май 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7547/18-191.
21.
AuerspergVTriebK. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy: an update. EFORT Open Rev2020; 5: 584–592.
22.
MalayDSPressmanMMAssiliA, et al.Extracorporeal shockwave therapy versus placebo for the treatment of chronic proximal plantar fasciitis: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, multicenter intervention trial. J Foot Ankle Surg2006; 45: 196–210.
23.
WangF-SWangC-JChenY-J, et al.Ras induction of superoxide activates ERK-dependent angiogenic transcription factor HIF-1α and VEGF-A expression in shock wave-stimulated osteoblasts. J Biol Chem2004; 279: 10331–10337.
24.
de GirolamoLStancoDGallieraE, et al.Soft-focused extracorporeal shock waves increase the expression of tendon-specific markers and the release of anti-inflammatory cytokines in an adherent culture model of primary human tendon cells. Ultrasound Med Biol2014; 40: 1204–1215.
25.
HeimesDWiesmannNEckrichJ, et al.In vivo modulation of angiogenesis and immune response on a collagen matrix via extracorporeal shockwaves. Int J Mol Sci2020; 21: 7574.
26.
LohrerHNauckTDorn-LangeNV, et al.Comparison of radial versus focused extracorporeal shock waves in plantar fasciitis using functional measures. Foot Ankle Int2010; 31: 1–9.
27.
ChangK-VChenS-YChenW-S, et al.Comparative effectiveness of focused shock wave therapy of different intensity levels and radial shock wave therapy for treating plantar fasciitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2012; 93: 1259–1268.
28.
ChowIHWCheingGL. Comparison of different energy densities of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) for the management of chronic heel pain. Clin Rehabil2007; 21: 131–141.
29.
CharlesRFangLZhuR, et al.The effectiveness of shockwave therapy on patellar tendinopathy, Achilles tendinopathy, and plantar fasciitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Immunol; 14. Epub ahead of print 16 Август 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1193835.
30.
Peña-MartínezVMAcosta-OlivoCSimental-MendíaLE, et al.Effect of corticosteroids over plantar fascia thickness in plantar fasciitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Sportsmed2023: 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.2023.2223673.
31.
LiSWangKSunH, et al.Clinical effects of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy and ultrasound-guided local corticosteroid injections for plantar fasciitis in adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore)2018; 97: e13687.
32.
XiongYWuQMiB, et al.Comparison of efficacy of shock-wave therapy versus corticosteroids in plantar fasciitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2019; 139: 529–536.
33.
SethIBullochGSethN, et al.The role of corticosteroid injections in treating plantar fasciitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Foot2023; 54: 101970.
34.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J2021; 372: n71.
35.
HigginsJPTThomas JChandler J et alCochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane Collaboration, London, 2023.
36.
SheaBJReevesBCWellsG, et al.AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Br Med J2017; 358: j4008.
37.
Amir-BehghadamiMJanatiA. Population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study (PICOS) design as a framework to formulate eligibility criteria in systematic reviews. Emerg Med J2020; 37: 387.
38.
MaherCGSherringtonCHerbertRD, et al.Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther2003; 83: 713–721.
de MortonNA. The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust J Physiother2009; 55: 129–133.
41.
HigginsJPTAltmanDGGøtzschePC, et al.The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J2011; 343: d5928.
42.
Armijo-OlivoSda CostaBRCummingsGG, et al.PEDro or Cochrane to assess the quality of clinical trials? A meta-epidemiological study. PLoS One2015; 10: e0132634.
43.
AtkinsDBestDBrissPA, et al.Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J2004; 328: 1490.
44.
MeaderNKingKLlewellynA, et al.A checklist designed to aid consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments: development and pilot validation. Syst Rev2014; 3: 82.
45.
BorensteinMHedgesLHigginsJ, et al.Comprehensive meta-analysis software version 4, https://www.meta-analysis.com/ (2023).
46.
CohenJ. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, New York: Academic Press, 1977.
47.
DerSimonianRLairdN. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials1986; 7: 177–188.
48.
RückerGSchwarzerG. Beyond the forest plot: the drapery plot. Res Synth Methods2021; 12: 13–19.
49.
KinneyAREakmanAMGrahamJE. Novel effect size interpretation guidelines and an evaluation of statistical power in rehabilitation research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2020; 101: 2219–2226.
50.
JaeschkeRSingerJGuyattGH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials1989; 10: 407–415.
51.
Man-Son-HingMLaupacisAO’RourkeK, et al.Determination of the clinical importance of study results. J Gen Intern Med2002; 17: 469–476.
52.
LandorfKBRadfordJA. Minimal important difference: values for the foot health Status questionnaire, foot function Index and visual analogue scale. Foot2008; 18: 15–19.
53.
EggerMSmithGDSchneiderM, et al.Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test measures of funnel plot asymmetry. Br Med J1997; 315: 629–634.
54.
DuvalSTweedieR. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics2000; 56: 455–463.
55.
HigginsJThompsonSDeeksJ, et al.Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J2003; 327: 557–560.
56.
HigginsJThompsonSDeeksJ, et al.Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice. J Heal Serv Res Policy2002; 7: 51–61.
57.
EslamianFShakouriSKJahanjooF, et al.Extra corporeal shock wave therapy versus local corticosteroid injection in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis, a single blinded randomized clinical trial. Pain Med2016; 17: 1722–1731.
58.
Guevara SernaJAAcosta MorónJA. Terapia de ondas de choque frente a infiltración corticosteroidea en el tratamiento de la fascitis plantar crónica. Rev Colomb Ortop y Traumatol2018; 32: 43–49.
59.
TurhanYAricanM. Comparison of three different treatment modalities in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis: corticosteroid injection, extracorporeal shock wave therapy and radiofrequency nerve ablation. Duzce Med J2019; 21: 118–122.
60.
UğurlarMSönmezMMUğurlarÖY, et al.Effectiveness of four different treatment modalities in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis during a 36-month follow-up period: a randomized controlled trial. J Foot Ankle Surg2018; 57: 913–918.
61.
XuDJiangWHuangD, et al.Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave therapy and local corticosteroid injection for plantar fasciitis. Foot Ankle Int2020; 41: 200–205.
62.
YucelIOzturanKEDemiraranY, et al.Comparison of high-dose extracorporeal shockwave therapy and intralesional corticosteroid injection in the treatment of plantar fasciitis. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc2010; 100: 105–110.
63.
MoneimNHAHemedMAKloosterPT, et al.Chronic plantar fasciitis treatment: a randomized trial comparing corticosteroid injections followed by therapeutic ultrasound with extracorporeal shock wave therapy. Rheumato2023; 3: 169–188.
64.
OrhanÖAğırHSarikayaB, et al.Pain relief and functional improvement provided by extracorporeal shock wave therapy in plantar fasciitis is better than corticosteroid injection and kinesio taping: a randomized trial. Turkish J Phys Med Rehabil2023; 69: 469–478.
65.
JiangHYuYLiuZ, et al.Treatment of plantar fasciitis with extracorporeal shock wave and corticosteroid injection: comparison of plantar pressure and gait. Chinese J Tissue Eng Res2021; 25: 3286–3291.
66.
JillaniSRUHMobushirMLatifS, et al.Comparison of intralesional steroid and extracorporal shockwave therapy for relief of pain in plantar fasciitis. Rawal Med J2020; 45: 115–119.
67.
HocaogluSVurdemUECebicciMA, et al.Comparative effectiveness of radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy and ultrasound-guided local corticosteroid injection treatment for plantar fasciitis. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc2017; 107: 192–199.
68.
LaiT-WMaH-LLeeM-S, et al.Ultrasonography and clinical outcome comparison of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and corticosteroid injections for chronic plantar fasciitis: a randomized controlled trial. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact2018; 18: 47–54.
69.
Mardani-KiviMKarimi MobarakehMHassanzadehZ, et al.Treatment outcomes of corticosteroid injection and extracorporeal shock wave therapy as two primary therapeutic methods for acute plantar fasciitis: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Foot Ankle Surg2015; 54: 1047–1052.
70.
PorterMDShadboltB. Intralesional corticosteroid injection versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy for plantar fasciopathy. Clin J Sport Med2005; 15: 119–124.
71.
SaberNDiabHNassarW, et al.Ultrasound guided local steroid injection versus extracorporeal shockwave therapy in the treatment of plantar fasciitis. Alexandria J Med2012; 48: 35–42.
72.
SorrentinoFIovaneAVetroA, et al.Role of high-resolution ultrasound in guiding treatment of idiopathic plantar fasciitis with minimally invasive techniques. Radiol Med2008; 113: 486–495.
73.
FreireVBureauN. Injectable corticosteroids: take precautions and use caution. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol2016; 20: 401–408.
74.
SpeedC. A systematic review of shockwave therapies in soft tissue conditions: focusing on the evidence. Br J Sports Med2014; 48: 1538–1542.
75.
WangYCChenSJHuangPJ, et al.Efficacy of different energy levels used in focused and radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy in the treatment of plantar fasciitis: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. J Clin Med2019; 8: 1497.
76.
YangC-FKenneyNJChangT-C, et al.Sex life and role identity in Taiwanese women during menopause: a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs2016; 72: 770–781.
77.
Armijo-OlivoSSaltajiHda CostaBR, et al.What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study. BMJ Open2015; 5: e008562.
78.
Armijo-OlivoSFuentesJda CostaBR, et al.Blinding in physical therapy trials and its association with treatment effects. Am J Phys Med Rehabil2017; 96: 34–44.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
