Manual therapy interventions in the treatment of plantar fasciitis: A comparison of three approaches

Pain improvement after three weeks of daily self-executed cross-friction massage using a fascia ball in a patient with recent-onset plantar heel pain: a case report

BACKGROUND

Plantar heel pain is described as sharp pain at the medial plantar aspect of the calcaneus and medial longitudinal arch of the foot. There are various treatment options that usually need a clinician or a therapist for application. The present case report aimed to describe the outcomes of self-executed cross-friction massage using a fascia ball in a patient with recent-onset plantar heel pain.

CASE DESCRIPTION

The patient was a 42-year-old man who reported plantar heel pain during the first steps in the morning along with decreased function of the foot and ankle lasting about three months. He was instructed to self-execute cross-friction massage using a fascia ball daily in the evening at home for six weeks.

OUTCOMES

Pain during treatment decreased from a Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS)-score of 8/10 and from a Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ)-score of 34/60 at initial treatment to NPRS- and SF-MPQ-scores of 0/10 and 0/60, respectively, after about three weeks. The patient reported no pain and restored function after six weeks of treatment, and in the follow-up measurements.

DISCUSSION

Daily self-executed cross-friction massage using a fascia ball may be a useful alternative intervention for treating recent-onset plantar heel pain.

The effectiveness of "Dijital Steps" web based telerehabilitation system for patient with hindfoot pain: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare effective therapeutic options for hindfoot pain, develop and investigate the effectiveness of tele-rehabilitation systems, and ensure patients perform their exercises and preventive measures regularly and accurately, while monitoring results.

METHODS

Hindfoot pain (HP) patients (N = 77 with 120 feet) were admitted to this study and divided into two pathologies; Plantar Fasciitis and Achilles Tendinopathy. Patients in each pathology were randomized into three different rehabilitation programs-web-based telerehabilitation (PF-T & AT-T), -hands-on healing techniques combined with exercise (PF-C & AT-C)-unsupervised home exercise (PF-H & AT-H) program. Disability, activity restrictions, first-step pain, dorsiflexion-plantar flexion range of motion and kinesiophobia scores were recorded. The outcomes of the study groups were collected pre-post intervention (8thweek). Telerehabilitation system was developed via user-driven innovation and tested before using formally.

RESULTS

Each group had significant improvements in pain, disability, functional status and kinesiophobia (p < 0.001). In terms of functional status, PF-C had a statistically significant difference from others (p < 0.001). There was no difference between the groups for the pain scores in both pathologies. (p > 0.001). However, web-based telerehabilitation (PF-T & AT-T) were found to be more effective on kinesiophobia compared to the other groups (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The presented web-based telerehabilitation system for management of hindfoot pain is an effective way and might be preferred instead of unsupervised home exercise specially for kinesiophobia. Additionally, Foot and ankle stretching and strengthening exercises protocols, myofascial releasing and mulligan concept manual therapy are effective modalities in terms of ROM, VISA-A, FAAM, FFI, TSK and VAS scores for hindfoot pain. The results indicated that three promised different rehabilitation protocols could be an effective strategy for HP.

Effect of platelet-rich plasma versus steroid injection in plantar fasciitis: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Plantar fasciitis (PF) is a common orthopaedic problem, with heel pain worsening the quality of life. Although steroid injection is often used if the conservative treatment fails, Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) injection is gaining popularity due to its safety and long-lasting effect. However, the effect of PRP versus steroid injection in PF has not been studied yet in Nepal. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effect of PRP compared with steroid injection in the treatment of PF.

METHODS

This study was a single-center, hospital-based, open-label, parallel-group randomized clinical trial to compare the effect of PRP injection with steroid injection in plantar fasciitis between August 2020 and March 2022. A total of 90 randomly selected participants aged 18 to 60 years suffering from plantar fasciitis with failed conservative treatment were intervened. The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scoring system were used to evaluate functional mobility and pain before and after the intervention for three and six months, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed using a Student's two-sample t-test. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The PRP injection showed a better outcome than the steroid injection in six months follow-up. The mean (± SD) VAS score was significantly decreased in the PRP group (1.97 + 1.13) than in the steroid group (2.71 ± 0.94) with the group difference of -0.73 (95% CI: -1.18 to -0.28) at six months. Similarly, there was a significant increase in the AOFAS scores in the PRP group (86.04 ± 7.45) compared to the steroid group (81.23 ± 9.60) at six months of follow-up with a group difference of 4.80 (95% CI: 1.15 to 8.45). There was also a significant reduction of plantar fascia thickness in the PRP group compared to that of the steroid group (3.53 ± 0.81 versus 4.58 ± 1.02) at six months of follow-up with the group difference of -1.04 (95% CI: -1.44 to -0.65).

CONCLUSION

The PRP injection showed better outcomes than steroid injection in plantar fasciitis treatment over the course of six months. Further research with a larger population and longer follow-up than six months is needed to generalize the findings and their long-term efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04985396. First registered on 02 August 2021. ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04985396 ).