Cost-Effectiveness of Two Dry Needling Interventions for Plantar Heel Pain: A Secondary Analysis of an RCT.

Plantar heel pain is a common cause of foot pain that affects patients' quality of life and represents a significant cost for the healthcare system. Dry needling and percutaneous needle electrolysis are two minimally invasive treatments that were shown to be effective for the management of plantar heel pain. The aim of our study was to compare these two treatments in terms of health and economic consequences based on the results of a published randomized controlled trial. For this, we evaluated the costs from the point of view of the hospital and we carried out a cost-effectiveness study using quality of life as the main variable according to the Eq-5D-5L questionnaire. The cost of the complete treatment with dry needling (DN) was €178.86, while the percutaneous needle electrolysis (PNE) was €200.90. The quality of life of patients improved and was translated into +0.615 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for DN and +0.669 for PNE. PNE presented an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €411.34/QALY against DN. These results indicate that PNE had a better cost-effectiveness ratio for the treatment of plantar heel pain than DN.

Comparing two dry needling interventions for plantar heel pain: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of dry needling (DN) versus percutaneous needle electrolysis (PNE) for improving the level of pain, function and quality of life (QoL) of patients suffering from plantar heel pain (PHP) provoked by myofascial trigger points. DESIGN: A prospective, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. SETTING: A single treatment facility in the State of Kuwait. PARTICIPANTS: 118 participants were screened for eligibility. Of these, 102 participants were enrolled (30 men (49.5±8.9 years) and 72 women (48.1±8.8 years)) and 68 of them completed the trial. INTERVENTIONS: Two parallel groups, one study arm received DN and a stretching protocol whereas the other arm received percutaneous needling electrolysis with a stretching protocol. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Foot Pain domain of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire, with 13 questions related to foot health-related domains. Secondary outcome measures included the 0-10 numerical rating scale pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, performed before and after each treatment session. In addition, QoL was measured using the EuroQoL-5 dimensions. All measurements were taken at baseline, at 4, 8, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. RESULTS: Foot Pain domain improved at all time points for DN group (p<0.001; 29.7 (17.8 to 41.5)) and percutaneous needling electrolysis group (p<0.001; 32.7 (18.3 to 47.0)), without significant differences between groups. Pain VAS scores decreased at all time points for both DN (p<0.001; -2.6 (-4.0 to -1.2)) and percutaneous needling electrolysis group (p<0.001; -3.0 (-4.5 to -1.6)). QoL improved at 4 weeks for both DN (p<0.01; 0.15 (0.5 to 0.25)) and percutaneous needling electrolysis group (p<0.01; 0.09 (0.01 to 0.17)) and at 8 and 52 weeks for the PNE group (p<0.01; 0.10 (0.02 to 0.18)), with significant differences between groups for the QoL at 52 weeks (p<0.05; 0.10 (0.01 to 0.18)). There were two small haematomas in the PNE group and one in the DN group. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Both PNE and DN were effective for PHP management, reducing mean and maximum pain since the first treatment session, with long lasting effects (52 weeks) and significant differences between groups in the case of QoL at 52 weeks in favour of the PNE group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03236779.

Comparative study of treatment interventions for patellar tendinopathy: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patellar tendinopathy is a degenerative disease of the patellar tendon, which affects athletes from a variety of sports, and is especially predominant in sports involving high-impact jumping. The aim of this study is to determine the additional effect of two interventions combined with eccentric exercise and compare which one is the most effective at short-term and long-term follow-up for patients with patellar tendinopathy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a randomised controlled trial with blinded participants. Measurements will be carried out by a specially trained blinded assessor. A sample of 57 patients with a medical diagnosis of patellar tendinopathy will participate in this study and will be divided into three treatment groups. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to receive either: (a) treatment group with percutaneous needle electrolysis, (b) treatment group with dry needling or (c) treatment group with placebo needling. In addition, all groups will perform eccentric exercise. Functionality and muscle strength parameters, pain, ultrasound appearances and patient perceived quality of life shall be evaluated using the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment for patellar (VISA-P), jump tests, Visual Analogue Scale, ultrasound images and Short Form-36 (SF-36), respectively. Participants will be assessed at baseline, at 10 weeks and at 22 weeks after baseline. The expected findings will allow us to advance in the treatment of this injury, as they will help determine whether a needling intervention has additional effects on an eccentric exercise programme and whether any of the needling modalities is more effective than the other. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Aragon (N° PI15/0017). The trial will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02498795.

Comparing two dry needling interventions for plantar heel pain: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Both manual therapy techniques and dry needling have shown to be effective treatment options for the treatment of plantar heel pain; however, in recent years, other techniques based on dry needling (DN), such as percutaneous needle electrolysis (PNE), have also emerged. Currently, PNE is being used in clinical practice to manage myofascial trigger points, despite the lack of studies comparing the effects of this technique over dry needling. Therefore, the aim of this randomized controlled study is to compare the effectiveness of DN versus PNE for improving the level of pain experienced by patients suffering from plantar heel pain provoked by myofascial trigger points. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial will be conducted with blinded participants and outcome assessors. A sample of 94 patients with a medical diagnosis of plantar heel pain will be recruited and divided into two treatment groups. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to either (a) treatment group with DN and a self-stretching home program or (b) treatment group with PNE and a self-stretching home program. Each group will receive one treatment session per week over a period of 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure will be the pain subscale of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire. The secondary outcome measures will be a visual analogue scale for pain (average and highest level of pain experienced during the previous 48 h; level of pain immediately after the treatment session) and health-related quality of life (assessed using the EuroQoL-5 dimensions). Cost-effectiveness data will be extracted based on the EuroQoL-5 dimensions. Follow-up measurements will take place at baseline and at 4, 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. DISCUSSION: The justification for this trial is the need to improve current understanding regarding the effectiveness of treatments targeting the rehabilitation of plantar heel pain. This study will be the first randomized controlled trial to directly compare the effectiveness of DN and PNE combined with a specific stretching program for the treatment of plantar heel pain provoked by myofascial trigger points. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT03236779. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov 2 August 2017.