A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Prolotherapy Versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Plantar Fasciitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • - The study compared the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and dextrose prolotherapy in treating chronic plantar fasciitis in patients who hadn't improved with conservative treatments.
  • - A total of 29 patients were randomly assigned to receive either ESWT or dextrose prolotherapy over three sessions, with pain and function assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-treatment.
  • - Both treatment methods led to significant improvements in pain and foot function scores, but no significant difference was found in effectiveness between the two therapies.

Article Abstract

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) versus dextrose prolotherapy on pain and foot functions in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis with a prospective randomized-controlled trial. A total of 29 patients in whom conservative care failed were enrolled for the study after the clinical and ultrasonographic assessment. The patients were randomly assigned to receive ESWT (ESWT group, n = 15) or dextrose prolotherapy (dextrose prolotherapy group, n = 14). ESWT group received 1800 to 2000 focused shock waves (session of 0.20-0.30 mJ/mm with a frequency of 4-6 Hz) followed by soft tissue 3000 to 3500 radial pulses (session of 1.8-3.0 bar with a frequency of 15-21 Hz). Dextrose prolotherapy group underwent an injection of 5 ml 15% dextrose solution with 2% lidocaine. ESWT and dextrose prolotherapy were repeated 3 times by 2 weeks apart. A 100-mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for overall and morning pain, Foot Function Index (FFI) and the Roles and Maudsley Scale score (RMS) were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after the last intervention. Overall VAS, Morning VAS, RMS and FFI scores improved significantly in both treatment groups at 6 weeks and 12 weeks compared to baseline (p < .001). Comparison of changes in overall VAS, Morning VAS, RMS and FFI scores did not show a significant difference between the groups at each time point (p > .05) In our study dextrose prolotherapy and ESWT had similar effectiveness in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis who have not respond to conservative care. The results showed ESWT and dextrose prolotherapy were not superior to each other.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2021.06.007DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

dextrose prolotherapy
28
chronic plantar
12
plantar fasciitis
12
vas morning
12
prolotherapy
8
dextrose
8
pain foot
8
patients chronic
8
conservative care
8
eswt group
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!