Tornese Davide, Mattei Enrico, Lucchesi Giampaolo, Bandi Marco, Ricci Gabriele, Melegati Gianluca
Galeazzi Orthopedics Institute - Center for Sports Rehabilitation, Milan, Italy.
Clin Rehabil. 2008 Sep;22(9):780-7. doi: 10.1177/0269215508092819.
To describe and compare two extracorporeal shock wave therapy techniques for the treatment of painful subcalcaneal spur.
Random assignment to two groups of treatment with two and eight months follow-up.
The data were collected in outpatients.
Forty-five subjects with a history of at least six months of heel pain were studied.
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).
Mayo Clinical Scoring System was used to evaluate each subject before the treatment and at two and eight months follow-up.
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.
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.
描述并比较两种体外冲击波疗法治疗疼痛性跟骨骨刺的效果。
随机分为两组进行治疗,并随访2个月和8个月。
数据收集于门诊患者。
对45例有至少6个月足跟疼痛病史的患者进行研究。
每位患者接受为期3周的超声引导下体外冲击波治疗(每周1次)。A组(n = 22,平均年龄59.3±12岁)采用垂直技术,B组(n = 23,平均年龄58.8±12.3岁)采用切线技术。
使用梅奥临床评分系统在治疗前以及随访2个月和8个月时对每位患者进行评估。
两组治疗前梅奥临床评分系统得分相近(A组55.2±18.7;B组53.5±20;P>0.05)。两组在随访2个月(A组83.9±13.7;B组80±15.8)和8个月(A组90±10.5;B组90.2±8.7)时,梅奥临床评分系统得分均显著升高(P<0.05)。在随访2个月和8个月时,比较两组梅奥临床评分系统得分未发现显著差异。
两种体外冲击波治疗技术之间无差异。发现切线技术在治疗引起的疼痛方面耐受性更好,可使用更高的能量剂量。