Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy versus Low-Level Laser Therapy in the Management of Chronic Plantar Fasciitis

Introduction: Plantar fasciitis (PF) is one of the common reasons for foot pain and is associated with substantial health and economic burden. PF often responds to a wide range of therapies that are predominantly conservative. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the effects of low-level laser therapy on pain and disability in patients with PF. Methods: Studies were comprehensively searched in Pubmed MEDLINE, the PEDro database, the Scientific Electronic Library Online, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from the earliest date available to January 2019. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of low-level laser therapy versus control or another intervention for patients with PF were included. Mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. Calculations were performed using a random effects model, with two comparisons: low-level laser therapy compared with the control (no intervention); low-level laser therapy compared with extracorporeal shock wave therapy. Results: Eight trials met the study criteria, including 473 PF patients. The main outcomes included changes from baseline in the Visual Analogue Scale Score (pain) and Foot Function Index (disability). Low-level laser therapy resulted in improvement in pain MD (-2.27 95% CI: -2.72 to -1.82 N=184) compared with the control. No significant difference in disability MD (-1.81 95% CI: -7.4 to 3.8 N=110) was found in participants in the low-level laser therapy group compared with the control group. Compared with extracorporeal shock wave therapy, low-level laser therapy did not achieve a significant reduction in pain intensity MD (0.45 95% CI: -2.4 to 3.3 N=141). In addition, no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Low-level laser therapy may improve pain and should be considered as a component of care for PF patients. However, this superiority disappeared when it was compared to extracorporeal shock wave therapy.

Download Full-text

Extracorporeal Shock-Wave Therapy or Low-Level Laser Therapy

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery ◽

10.1097/scs.0000000000006506 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽

Author(s):

Esma Bilge Göl ◽

Nilüfer Özkan ◽

Cihan Bereket ◽

Mehmet Emin Önger

Keyword(s):

Shock Wave ◽

Laser Therapy ◽

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy ◽

Low Level Laser Therapy ◽

Shock Wave Therapy ◽

Low Level ◽

Low Level Laser ◽

Extracorporeal Shock Wave ◽

Level Laser

Download Full-text

Comparison of effects of low-level laser therapy and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in plantar fasciitis treatment: A randomized, prospective, single-blind clinical study

Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ◽

10.5606/tftrd.2019.3528 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 65 (2) ◽

pp. 184-190

Author(s):

Ömür Damla Yinilmez Sanmak

Keyword(s):

Shock Wave ◽

Clinical Study ◽

Laser Therapy ◽

Plantar Fasciitis ◽

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy ◽

Low Level Laser Therapy ◽

Shock Wave Therapy ◽

Extracorporeal Shock Wave ◽

Level Laser ◽

Single Blind

Download Full-text

Comparison of effects of low-level laser therapy and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in calcaneal spur treatment: A prospective, randomized, clinical study

Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ◽

10.5606/tftrd.2021.5260 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 67 (2) ◽

pp. 218-224

Author(s):

Sevtap Badil Güloğlu ◽

Ümit Yalçın

Keyword(s):

Shock Wave ◽

Laser Therapy ◽

Plantar Fascia ◽

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy ◽

Low Level Laser Therapy ◽

Shock Wave Therapy ◽

Low Level Laser ◽

Extracorporeal Shock Wave ◽

Level Laser ◽

Painful Heel

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in the treatment of calcaneal spurs. Patients and methods: A total of 62 patients (14 males, 48 females; mean age: 47.6±11.7 years; range, 18 to 70 years) who were diagnosed with calcaneal spurs based on clinical examination and plain radiography between April 2019 and September 2019 were included in this study. A total of 15 sessions of plantar fascia gastroc-soleus stretching exercises and cold pack treatments were given to both groups. The LLLT (904 nm wavelength, 3,000 Hz, 8 J/cm2 dose to the painful heel area and insertion of the plantar fascia on the medial calcaneal area, five points for a total of 5 min for three weeks) was applied to the first group (n=31), whereas ESWT (10 Hz, 2,000 shock waves with a 2.5 bar pressure into the areas of the painful heel, insertion of the plantar fascia on the medial calcaneal area) was applied the second group (n=31). All patients were evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Foot Function Index (FFI) before and after treatment. Results: In both groups, the median VAS and FFI scores after treatment showed a significant improvement, compared to pre-treatment scores (p=0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the median post-treatment VAS scores (p>0.05). In the ESWT group, the median FFI pain and total scores after treatment were significantly lower than in the LLLT group (p=0.033). The change in the median FFI pain and total scores were significantly higher in the ESWT group (p=0.046). Conclusion: Both treatment modalities are effective and not superior to each other in terms of disability and activity limitation reduction, although a greater improvement in the FFI pain and total scores can be achieved with the ESWT. Based on these findings, we recommend both non-invasive treatment methods to be used in the treatment of calcaneal spurs in the clinical practice.

Download Full-text