Treatment of chronic plantar fasciopathy with extracorporeal shock waves (review)

Table 1 RCTs on ESWT for chronic PF classified as good by Rompe et al. [[5]]

Study	Outcome	Chalmers score^c	Jadad score^d	Placebo treatment	L.A.	Patients
Haake et al. [26]	−^a	90	6	^e	+^h	^j
Kudo et al. [27]	+^b	88	6	^e	−ⁱ	^k
Malay et al. [28]	+^b	84	6	^f	−	^k
Buchbinder et al. [29]	−^a	82	4	^g	−	^j

^aLack of statistically significantly (p < 0.05) better outcome for the patients treated with ESWT than the patients treated with placebo; ^bstatistically significantly (p < 0.05) better outcome for the patients treated with ESWT than the patients treated with placebo; ^cquality score according to Chalmers et al. [24]; ^dquality score according to Jadad et al. [25]; ^etreatment of patients in the placebo group in exactly the same manner as patients in the active group but placing a foam-insulated or air-filled membrane between the applicator of the shock wave device and the patient’s skin that reflects the shock waves; ^ftreatment of patients in the placebo group in exactly the same manner as patients in the active group but modifying the shock wave device so that it does not deliver shock waves; ^gtreatment of patients in the placebo group with only a small number of shock waves at low energy settings; ^hlocal anesthesia; ⁱmedial calcaneal nerve block anesthesia; ^jpatients with symptoms present for less or more than 6 months who have or have not previously failed pharmacologic (analgesic, anti-inflammatory, or other) and non-pharmacologic treatment modalities for the relief of heel pain; ^konly patients with symptoms present for more than 6 months who have previously failed pharmacologic (analgesic, anti-inflammatory, or other) and non-pharmacologic treatment modalities for relief of heel pain.

ISSN: 1749-799X