Effects of therapeutic interventions on pain due to plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of different therapeutic interventions that have ever been evaluated in randomized controlled trials on pain due to plantar fasciitis. METHODS: We searched different electronic databases until September 2022. Mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to evaluate the overall certainty evidence. RESULTS: A total of 236 studies met the study criteria, including 15,401 patients. Botulinum toxin MD -2.14 (CI: -4.15, -0.14), micronized dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane injection MD -3.31 (CI: -5.54, -1.08), dry needling MD -2.34 (CI: -4.64, -0.04), low-dye taping MD -3.60 (CI: -4.16, -3.03), low-level laser therapy MD -2.09 (CI: -2.28, -1.90), myofascial releases MD -1.79 (CI: -2.63, -0.94), platelet-rich plasma MD -2.40 (CI: -4.16, -0.63), radiofrequency MD -2.47 (CI: -4.65, -0.29), and stretching MD -1.14 (CI: -2.02, -0.26) resulted in being effective treatments for pain when compared to the control in the short term. In the medium and long term, only extracorporeal shock wave therapy MD -0.97 (CI: -1.13, -0.81)/MD -2.49 (CI: -3.17, -1.82) was effective for improving pain when compared to the control. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the available studies, this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that different therapeutic interventions seem to be useful strategies for improving pain in patients with plantar fasciitis. In the medium and long term, only extracorporeal shock wave therapy was effective in improving pain when compared to the control.

Effect of low-level laser therapy on pain and disability in patients with plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to investigate the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on pain and disability in patients with plantar fasciitis (PF). METHODS: We searched Pubmed, PEDro database, Scielo, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of LLLT for patients with PF. The methodological aspects of the studies included were scored using the PEDro scale. Three comparisons were made: LLLT compared with placebo, LLLT combined with conventional rehabilitation (CR) compared with CR and LLLT compared with extracorporeal shock wave therapy. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (817 patients) met the study criteria. Compared to the placebo group, LLLT improved pain (MD, -2.3; 95% CI: 2.6 to -2, I2 = 0%; 4 studies, N = 234: moderate-quality evidence) in the short term (0-6 weeks). No significant difference in short-term disability was found for participants in the LLLT group compared to the placebo group. Compared to the CR group, LLLT combined with CR improved pain (MD, -2.0; 95% CI: 2.9 to -1.1, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, N = 90: moderate-quality evidence) in the short term (0-6 weeks). Compared to extracorporeal shock wave therapy, LLLT did not significantly reduce pain intensity in the short term (MD, 0.5; 95% CI: 2.0 to 2.9, I2 = 96%; 4 studies, N = 175: low-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: LLLT may improve pain in the short term and can be considered as a component of care of patients with PF. However, this superiority disappeared compared to extracorporeal shock wave therapy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level I.