To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Prolotherapy vs. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy in Chronic Plantar Fasciitis

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
February 2022

Prolotherapy vs. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy in Chronic Plantar Fasciitis

Vol: 197| Issue: 1| Number:1| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

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

J Foot Ankle Surg . Jan-Feb 2022;61(1):48-52.

Contributing Authors:
Kesikburun Serdar Şan Ayca Uran Kesikburun Bilge Aras Berke Yaşar Evren Tan Arif Kenan

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

Twenty nine patients with chronic plantar fasciitis were randomized to receive extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT, n=15) or dextrose prolotherapy (n=15). Outcomes of interest included pain measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and function measured with the Roles and Maudsley Scale score (RMS) and the Foot Function Index (FFI). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in pain a...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue