This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Tornese, D. Articles by Melegati, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tornese, D. Articles by Melegati, G. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Comparison of two extracorporeal shock wave therapy techniques for the treatment of painful subcalcaneal spur. A randomized controlled study

Galeazzi Orthopedics Institute - Center for Sports Rehabilitation, Milan, Italy, davidzai{at}tin.it

Enrico Mattei

Galeazzi Orthopedics Institute - Center for Sports Rehabilitation, Milan, Italy

Giampaolo Lucchesi

Galeazzi Orthopedics Institute - Center for Sports Rehabilitation, Milan, Italy

Marco Bandi

Galeazzi Orthopedics Institute - Center for Sports Rehabilitation, Milan, Italy

Gabriele Ricci

Galeazzi Orthopedics Institute - Center for Sports Rehabilitation, Milan, Italy

Gianluca Melegati

Galeazzi Orthopedics Institute - Center for Sports Rehabilitation, Milan, Italy

Objective: To describe and compare two extracorporeal shock wave therapy techniques for the treatment of painful subcalcaneal spur.

Design: Random assignment to two groups of treatment with two and eight months follow-up.

Setting: The data were collected in outpatients.

Subjects: Forty-five subjects with a history of at least six months of heel pain were studied.

Interventions: Each subject received a three-session ultrasound-guided extracorporeal shock wave therapy (performed weekly). Perpendicular technique was used in group A (n=22, mean age 59.3 ± 12 years) and tangential technique was used in group B (n= 23, mean age 58.8 ± 12.3 years).

Main outcome measures: Mayo Clinical Scoring System was used to evaluate each subject before the treatment and at two and eight months follow-up.

Results: Mayo Clinical Scoring System pretreatment scores were homogeneous between the groups (group A 55.2 ±18.7; group B 53.5 ± 20; P>0.05). In both groups there was a significant (P<0.05) increase in the Mayo Clinical Scoring System score at two months (group A 83.9 ± 13.7; group B 80 ± 15,8) and eight months (group A 90 ± 10.5; group B 90.2 ±8.7) follow-up. No significant differences were obtained comparing the Mayo Clinical Scoring System scores of the two groups at two and eight months follow-up.

Conclusions: There was no difference between the two techniques of using extracorporeal shock wave therapy. The tangential technique was found to be better tolerated as regards treatment-induced pain, allowing higher energy dosages to be used.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 22, No. 9, 780-787 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0269215508092819


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?