Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Extracorporeal shockwave therapy versus graston instrument assisted soft-tissue mobilization in chronic plantar heel pain: a randomized controlled trial
Pisirici P, Cil ET, Coskunsu DK, Sayli, Subasi F
Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 2022 Nov-Dec;112(6):1-11
clinical trial
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: Although there are studies showing that extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and instrument-assisted soft-tissue mobilization (IASTM) methods are effective in chronic plantar heel pain (CPHP) treatment, there is a need for studies comparing these techniques. Our goal is to compare the effectiveness of ESWT versus IASTM using Graston Technique R (GT R) instruments in addition to stretching exercises (SEs) in CPHP. METHODS: Sixty-nine patients were randomly assigned to 3 groups as ESWT plus SEs (Gr I), GT R plus SEs (Gr II) and SEs (CG) (ratio 1:1:1). SEs program twice/day, for 8-week was standard for all. Gr I received low intensity ESWT while in Gr II, GT R was the selected method. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (for initial step and activity pain); foot function index (FFI); short form-12 (SF-12), and Tampa Scale were used at pretreatment, posttreatment and follow-ups (8-week and 6-month). RESULTS: VAS and FFI scores improved in the posttreatment and follow-ups in all (p < 0.00) While effect sizes in Gr I and Gr II were greater than CG in initial step pain at posttreatment and 8-week-follow-up, Gr II had highest effect size at 6-month-follow-up. The mean SF-12 scores in Gr I and Gr II showed improvement on the posttreatment assessment. Furthermore, Gr II showed significant improvements in FFI scores compared to other groups in 6-month-follow-up (F = 6.33, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Even though ESWT plus SEs and GT R plus SEs interventions seem to have similar effects on initial step pain at posttreatment and 8-week-follow-up; GT R plus SEs was found most effective for improving functional status at 6-month in the management of CPHP.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help