Treatments for Morton's neuroma.

BACKGROUND: Morton's neuroma (MN) is a painful neuropathy resulting from a benign enlargement of the common plantar digital nerve that occurs commonly in the third webspace and, less often, in the second webspace of the foot. Symptoms include burning or shooting pain in the webspace that extends to the toes, or the sensation of walking on a pebble. These impact on weight-bearing activities and quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions for MN. SEARCH METHODS: On 11 July 2022, we searched CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus EBSCOhost, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Embase Ovid, MEDLINE Ovid, and WHO ICTRP. We checked the bibliographies of identified randomised trials and systematic reviews and contacted trial authors as needed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised, parallel-group trials (RCTs) of any intervention compared with placebo, control, or another intervention for MN. We included trials where allocation occurred at the level of the individual or the foot (clustered data). We included trials that confirmed MN through symptoms, a clinical test, and an ultrasound scan (USS) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We assessed bias using Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2) and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs involving 373 participants with MN. We judged risk of bias as having 'some concerns' across most outcomes. No studies had a low risk of bias across all domains. Post-intervention time points reported were: three months to less than 12 months from baseline (nonsurgical outcomes), and 12 months or longer from baseline (surgical outcomes). The primary outcome was pain, and secondary outcomes were function, satisfaction or health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and adverse events (AE). Nonsurgical treatments Corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection (CS+LA) versus local anaesthetic injection (LA) Two RCTs compared CS+LA versus LA. At three to six months: • CS+LA may result in little to no difference in pain (mean difference (MD) -6.31 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -14.23 to 1.61; P = 0.12, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 157 participants; low-certainty evidence). (Assessed via a pain visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100 mm); a lower score indicated less pain.) • CS+LA may result in little to no difference in function when compared with LA (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.02; P = 0.06, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 157 participants; low-certainty evidence). (Function was measured using: the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Lesser Toe Metatarsophalangeal-lnterphalangeal Scale (AOFAS; 0 to 100 points) - we transformed the scale so that a lower score indicated improved function - and the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Schedule (MFPDS; 0 to 100 points), where a lower score indicated improved function.) • CS+LA probably results in little to no difference in HRQoL when compared to LA (MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.17; P = 0.19; 1 study, 122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and CS+LA may not increase satisfaction (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.85; P = 0.78; 1 study, 35 participants; low-certainty evidence). (Assessed using the EuroQol five dimension instrument (EQ-5D; 0-1 point); a higher score indicated improved HRQoL.) • The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of CS+LA on AE when compared with LA (RR 9.84, 95% CI 1.28 to 75.56; P = 0.03, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events for CS+LA included mild skin atrophy (3.9%), hypopigmentation of the skin (3.9%) and plantar fat pad atrophy (2.6%); no adverse events were observed with LA. Ultrasound-guided (UG) CS+LA versus non-ultrasound-guided (NUG) CS+LA Two RCTs compared UG CS+LA versus NUG CS+LA. At six months: • UG CS+LA probably reduces pain when compared with NUG CS+LA (MD -15.01 mm, 95% CI -27.88 to -2.14; P = 0.02, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 116 feet; moderate-certainty evidence). (Assessed with a pain VAS.) • UG CS+LA probably increases function when compared with NUG CS+LA (SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.10; P = 0.01, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 116 feet; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not know of any established minimum clinical important difference (MCID) for the scales that assessed function, specifically, the MFPDS and the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ; 0 to 100 points; a lower score indicated improved function.) • UG CS+LA may increase satisfaction compared with NUG CS+LA (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.44; P = 0.003, I2 = 15%; 2 studies, 114 feet; low-certainty evidence). • HRQoL was not measured. • UG CS+LA may result in little to no difference in AE when compared with NUG CS+LA (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.39; P = 0.15, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 116 feet; low-certainty evidence). AE included depigmentation or fat atrophy for UG CS+LA (4.9%) and NUG CS+LA (12.7%). Surgical treatments Plantar incision neurectomy (PN) versus dorsal incision neurectomy (DN) One study compared PN versus DN. At 34 months (mean; range 28 to 42 months), PN may result in little to no difference for satisfaction (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.28; P = 0.58; 1 study, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence), or for AE (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.85; P = 0.93; 1 study, 75 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared with DN. AE for PN included hypertrophic scaring (11.4%), foreign body reaction (2.9%); AE for DN included missed nerve (2.5%), artery resected (2.5%), wound infection (2.5%), postoperative dehiscence (2.5%), deep vein thrombosis (2.5%) and reoperation with plantar incision due to intolerable pain (5%). The data reported for pain and function were not suitable for analysis. HRQoL was not measured. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although there are many interventions for MN, few have been assessed in RCTs. There is low-certainty evidence that CS+LA may result in little to no difference in pain or function, and moderate-certainty evidence that UG CS+LA probably reduces pain and increases function for people with MN. Future trials should improve methodology to increase certainty of the evidence, and use optimal sample sizes to decrease imprecision.

Effectiveness of Nonsurgical Interventions for Hallux Valgus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions for hallux valgus (HV). METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched to April 2020, including parallel-group and crossover studies investigating nonsurgical interventions for HV. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, determined risk of bias, and made assessments using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Risk of bias was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Effect sizes (mean differences or risk ratios, and 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and pooled where possible for the primary outcomes, foot pain, and HV angle. RESULTS: Eighteen included studies investigated a wide range of nonsurgical interventions for HV. Most studies had small sample sizes and concerns regarding risk of bias. Five separate meta-analyses for foot orthoses, splints, manual therapy, and taping added to foot exercises showed no significant effects on primary outcomes. However, results from 8 studies showed a significant pain reduction with the use of foot orthoses, night splints, dynamic splints, manual therapy, taping added to foot exercises, a multifaceted physical therapy program, and Botox injections. Four studies reported a clinically significant reduction in HV angle with night splints, foot exercises, multifaceted physical therapy, and Botox injections. CONCLUSION: There is a low level of certainty surrounding the effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions for HV, but a reduction in pain appears more likely than improvement in HV angle.

The effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for common plantar digital compressive neuropathy (Morton's neuroma): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Morton's neuroma (MN) is a compressive neuropathy of the common plantar digital nerve. It is a common compressive neuropathy often causing significant pain which limits footwear choices and weight bearing activities. This paper aims to review non-surgical interventions for MN, to evaluate the evidence base for the clinical management of MN. METHODS: Electronic biomedical databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane) were searched to January 2018 for studies evaluating the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for Morton's neuroma. Outcome measures of interest were treatment success rate (SR) (binary) and pain as measured using 100-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (continuous). Studies with and without control groups were included and were evaluated for methodological quality using the Downs and Black Quality Index. Results from randomised controlled trials (RCT) were compared between-groups, and case series were compared pre- versus post-treatment. Effect estimates are presented as odds ratios (OR) for binary data or mean differences (MD) for continuous data. Random effects models were used to pool effect estimates across studies where similar treatments were used. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria, seven RCTs and 18 pre/post case series. Eight different interventions were identified, with corticosteroid or sclerosing injections being the most often reported (seven studies each). Results from a meta-analysis of two RCTs found corticosteroid injection decreased pain more than control on VAS (WMD: -5.3, 95%CI: -7.5 to - 3.2). Other RCTs reported efficacy of: manipulation/mobilisation versus control (MD: -15.3, 95%CI: -29.6 to - 1.0); extracorporeal shockwave therapy versus control (MD: -5.9, 95%CI: -21.9 to 10.1). Treatment success was assessed for extracorporeal shockwave therapy versus control (OR: 0.3, 95%CI: 0.0 to 7.1); and corticosteroid injection vs footwear/padding (OR: 6.0, 95%CI: 1.9 to 19.2). Sclerosing and Botox injections, radiofrequency ablation and cryoneurolysis have been investigated by case series studies, however these were of limited methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroid injections and manipulation/mobilisation are the two interventions with the strongest evidence for pain reduction, however high-quality evidence for a gold standard intervention was not found. Although the evidence base is expanding, further high quality RCTs are needed.