|本期目录/Table of Contents|

[1]刘璐,纪进化,汪燕,等.针刀松解和体外冲击波治疗跖筋膜炎型跟痛症的临床研究[J].医学研究与战创伤救治(原医学研究生学报),2023,25(3):237-241.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-271X.2023.03.003]
 LIU Lu,JI Jinhua,WANG Yan,et al.Comparison between needle-knife therapy and extracorporeal shock wave therapy for painful heel syndrome caused by chronic plantar fasciitis[J].JOURNAL OF MEDICALRESEARCH —COMBAT TRAUMA CARE,2023,25(3):237-241.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-271X.2023.03.003]
点击复制

针刀松解和体外冲击波治疗跖筋膜炎型跟痛症的临床研究()

《医学研究与战创伤救治》(原医学研究生学报)[ISSN:1672-271X/CN:32-1713/R]

卷:
第25卷
期数:
2023年3期
页码:
237-241
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2023-08-01

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison between needle-knife therapy and extracorporeal shock wave therapy for painful heel syndrome caused by chronic plantar fasciitis
作者:
刘璐纪进化汪燕刘国印
作者单位:210002南京,南京医科大学金陵临床医学院(东部战区总医院)骨科 (刘璐、纪进化、汪燕、刘国印)
Author(s):
LIU Lu JI Jinhua WANG Yan LIU Guoyin
(Department of Orthopaedics, Jinling Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210002, Jiangsu, China)
关键词:
针刀疗法体外冲击波疗法慢性跖筋膜炎跟痛症晨起足跟痛足跟压痛
Keywords:
needle-knife therapy (NKT) extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) chronic plantar fasciitis (CPF) painful heel syndrome(PHS) morning pain heel tenderness
分类号:
R686.3
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1672-271X.2023.03.003
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的探讨针刀松解(NKT)与体外冲击波(ESWT)治疗慢性跖筋膜炎型跟痛症(PHS-CPF)的临床疗效。方法收集2021年6月-2022年6月期间在南京医科大学金陵临床医学院骨科接受PHS-CPF治疗的48例患者,根据医患沟通结果和治疗方式分为NKT组(26例)和ESWT组(22例),NKT组采用针刀松解治疗模式进行操作,ESWT组采用激痛点治疗模式进行操作。分别采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)和压痛评分对2组治疗前及治疗后1周、1个月、3个月和6个月随访时的晨起足跟痛和足跟压痛进行评估。结果治疗后各随访时间节点,2组患者的晨起足跟痛和足跟压痛均较治疗前明显改善(P<0.05);2组治疗后1个月、3个月和6个月的晨起足跟痛和足跟压痛均低于治疗后1周(P<0.05);2组治疗后3个月和6个月的足跟压痛与治疗后1个月相比,差异不明显(P>0.05);NKT组治疗后3个月和6个月的晨起足跟痛均较治疗后1个月明显改善(1.88±0.71 vs 2.54±0.65,1.62±0.64 vs 2.54±0.65,P<0.05);与治疗后1个月相比,ESWT组治疗3个月后,晨起足跟痛无明显改善(P>0.05),而治疗6个月后,晨起足跟痛增加(4.32±0.78 vs 3.45±1.10,P<0.05)。治疗后1周时,NKT组的晨起足跟痛明显低于ESWT组(4.58±0.90 vs 5.27±0.98,P<0.05),而2组的足跟压痛差异不明显(P>0.05);治疗后1个月、3个月和6个月时,与ESWT组相比,NKT组在缓解晨起足跟痛(2.54±0.65 vs 3.45±1.10, 1.88±0.71 vs 3.64±0.95, 1.62±0.64 vs 4.32±0.78)和足跟压痛(0.58±0.58 vs 1.00±0.53, 0.54±0.58 vs 1.09±0.61, 0.73±0.53 vs 1.14±0.71)上更具优势(P<0.05)。结论NKT与ESWT治疗PHS-CPF的临床疗效确切,均能有效缓解晨起足跟痛和足跟压痛,并具有较好的维持治疗效果,但NKT的临床疗效更佳。
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical effect of needle-knife therapy(NKT) and extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in treatment of Painful Heel Syndrome caused by chronic plantar fasciitis (PHS-CPF).MethodsData of 48 patients with PHS-CPF from June 2021 to June 2022 were prospective analyzed. They were divided into NKT group (26 cases) and ESWT group (22 cases) by therapeutic methods after doctor-patient communication. The NKT group adopted the release therapy of plantar fascia, and the ESWT group adopted the trigger point therapy. The VAS and heel tenderness index were used to evaluate morning pain and heel tenderness before the treatment and at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months posttreatment, respectively.ResultsThe morning pain and heel tenderness were significantly improved at each follow-up time when compared with that of pretreatment (P<0.05). The morning heel pain and heel tenderness of the two groups at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months posttreatment were lower than that at 1 week posttreatment (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in heel tenderness of 1 month, compared to that of 3 months and 6 months posttreatment (P>0.05). The morning pain of 3 months and 6 months posttreatment was significantly improved, compared to 1 month posttreatment in NKT group (1.88±0.71 vs 2.54±0.65 and 1.62±0.64 vs 2.54±0.65, P<0.05). The morning pain in ESWT group had no significant improvement at 3 months posttreatment (P>0.05), but increased at 6 months posttreatment (4.32±0.78 vs 3.45±1.10, P<0.05), compared to those at 1 month posttreatment. At 1 week posttreatment, the morning pain in NKT group was significantly lower than that in ESWT group (4.58±0.90 vs 5.27±0.98, P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in heel tenderness between the two groups (P> 0.05). At 1 month, 3 months and 6 months posttreatment, NKT group was better than ESWT group in relieving morning pain (2.54±0.65 vs 3.45±1.10, 1.88±0.71 vs 3.64±0.95, 1.62±0.64 vs 4.32±0.78, P<0.05) and heel tenderness (0.58±0.58 vs 1.00±0.53, 0.54±0.58 vs 1.09±0.61, 0.73±0.53 vs 1.14±0.71, P<0.05).ConclusionThe clinical efficacy of NKT and ESWT in the treatment of PHS-CPF is exact, both of which can effectively relieve morning pain and heel tenderness and have good maintenance therapeutic effect. However, the NKT yields better therapeutic outcomes.

参考文献/References:

[1]Motley T. Plantar Fasciitis/Fasciosis[J]. Clin Podiatr Med Surg,2021,38(2):193-200.
[2]Kelly DK, Wiegand K, Freedman SJ. Dynamic stability in runners with and without plantar fasciitis[J]. Gait Posture,2022,96:301-305.
[3]Erden T, Toker B, Cengiz O, et al. Outcome of Corticosteroid Injections, Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy, andRadiofrequency Thermal Lesioning for Chronic Plantar Fasciitis[J]. Foot Ankle Int,2021,42(1):69-75.
[4]Xu D, Jiang W, Huang D, et al. Comparison Between Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy and Local CorticosteroidInjection for Plantar Fasciitis[J]. Foot Ankle Int,2020,41(2):200-205.
[5]Gamba C, Sala-Pujals A, Perez-Prieto D, et al. Relationship of Plantar Fascia Thickness and Preoperative Pain, Function, and Quality of Life in Recalcitrant Plantar Fasciitis[J]. Foot Ankle Int,2018,39(8):930-934.
[6]Johnson-Lynn S, Cooney A, Ferguson D, et al. A Feasibility Study Comparing Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection With Saline for theTreatment of Plantar Fasciitis Using a Prospective, Randomized Trial Design[J]. Foot Ankle Spec,2019, 12(2):153-158.
[7]Palomo-Lopez P, Becerro-De-Bengoa-Vallejo R, Losa-IglesiasME, et al. Impact of plantar fasciitis on the quality of life of male and female patients according to the Foot Health Status Questionnaire[J]. J Pain Res,2018,11:875-880.
[8]Roca B, Mendoza MA, Roca M. Comparison of extracorporeal shockwavetherapywith botulinum toxin type A inthe treatment of plantar fasciitis[J]. Disabil Rehabil,2016,38(21):2114-2121.
[9]Li H, Lv H, Lin T. Comparison of efficacy of eight treatments for plantar fasciitis: A networkmeta-analysis[J]. J Cell Physiol,2018,234(1):860-870.
[10]Al-Siyabi Z, Karam M, Al-Hajri E, et al. Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Versus Ultrasound Therapy for Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis[J]. Cureus,2022,14(1):e20871.
[11]Asheghan M, Hashemi SE, Hollisaz MT, et al. Dextrose prolotherapy versus radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy in thetreatment of chronic plantar fasciitis: A randomized, controlled clinical trial[J]. Foot Ankle Surg,2021,27(6):643-649.
[12]沈世英,李昌剑,袁伟,等. 针刀治疗痛性跟骨骨刺不同入路的临床疗效研究[J]. 重庆医学,2021,50(14):2489-2491.
[13]李品,钟欢,贺新铭,等. 针刀松解联合穴位注射治疗跟痛症急性期炎症反应的疗效观察[J]. 中国中医急症,2022,31(1):130-133.
[14]美国物理治疗协会骨科分会. 《国际功能、残疾和健康分类·足跟痛/足底筋膜炎:2014修订版》临床实践指南[J]. 康复学报,2019,29(1):2-20.
[15]Melese H, Alamer A, Getie K, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy on pain and foot functions in subjects with chronic plantar fasciitis: systematic review of randomized controlledtrials[J]. Disabil Rehabil,2022,44(18):5007-5014.
[16]Bahar-Ozdemir Y, Atan T. Effects of adjuvant low-dye Kinesio taping, adjuvant sham taping,orextracorporeal shockwave therapy alone in plantar fasciitis:Arandomiseddouble-blind controlled trial[J]. Int J Clin Pract,2021,75(5):e13993.
[17]吴宇,郑晓飞,柏天婷,等. 关节镜和开放性手术治疗跖筋膜炎型顽固性跟痛症的疗效比较[J]. 东南国防医药,2019,21(6):586-592.
[18]Michelsson O, Konttinen YT, Paavolainen P, et al. Plantar heel pain and its 3-mode 4-stage treatment[J]. Mod Rheumatol,2005,15(5):307-314.
[19]Ribeiro AP, Joo SMA. The Effect of Short and Long-Term Therapeutic Treatment with Insoles and Shoes on Pain, Function, and Plantar Load Parameters of Women with Plantar Fasciitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial[J]. Medicina(Kaunas),2022,58(11):1546.doi: 10.3390/medicina58111546.
[20]Thomas JL, Christensen JC, Kravitz SR, et al. The diagnosis and treatment of heel pain: a clinical practice guideline-revision2010[J]. J Foot Ankle Surg,2010,49(3 Suppl):S1-S19.
[21]Eslamian F, Shakouri SK, Jahanjoo F, etal. Extra Corporeal Shock Wave Therapy Versus Local Corticosteroid Injection in theTreatment of Chronic Plantar Fasciitis, a Single Blinded Randomized ClinicalTrial[J]. Pain Med,2016,17(9):1722-1731.
[22]Zhao J, Luo WM, Li T. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy versus corticosteroid injection for chronicplantar fasciitis: A protocol of randomized controlled trial[J]. Medicine (Baltimore),2020,99(19):e19920.
[23]Kesikburun S, Uran SA, Kesikburun B, et al. Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Prolotherapy Versus Extracorporeal Shock WaveTherapy in the Treatment of Chronic Plantar Fasciitis: A Randomized ClinicalTrial[J]. J Foot Ankle Surg,2022,61(1):48-52.
[24]赵爱琴,谢玮莉,王焱. 体外冲击波对膝骨关节炎患者血清及关节液中Chemerin含量的影响[J]. 东南国防医药,2016,18(5):498-500.
[25]李丽,马一铭,李琳,等. 体外低能量震波对人脐静脉内皮细胞和血管内皮生长因子及白细胞介素-8变化的影响[J]. 医学研究生学报,2015,28(8):789-793.
[26]Wheeler PC, Dudson C. Similar Benefits Seen After Radial Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy or AutologousBlood Injection in Patients With Chronic Plantar Fasciitis-A Retrospective CohortStudy[J]. Clin J Sport Med,2022,32(2):e107-e115.
[27]徐洪璋,陈超,黄波,等. 针刀治疗足跟痛症患者足底压力异常区域的临床研究[J]. 中国医药导报,2017,14(15):159-162.
[28]段华,陈世寅. 超声引导下小针刀治疗跖筋膜炎临床疗效观察[J]. 中国骨伤,2016,29(12):1092-1096.
[29]Lai TW, Ma HL, Lee MS, et al. Ultrasonography and clinical outcome comparison of extracorporeal shock wavetherapy and corticosteroid injections for chronic plantar fasciitis: A randomizedcontrolled trial[J]. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact,2018,18(1):47-54.

相似文献/References:

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
基金项目:国家自然科学基金(82102547);江苏省自然科学基金(BK20181113)
更新日期/Last Update: 2023-08-24