Suppr超能文献

跟骨骨骺炎的治疗:观察等待、矫形器治疗与物理治疗的比较:一项实用的治疗性随机临床试验

Treatment of Calcaneal Apophysitis: Wait and See Versus Orthotic Device Versus Physical Therapy: A Pragmatic Therapeutic Randomized Clinical Trial.

作者信息

Wiegerinck Johannes I, Zwiers Ruben, Sierevelt Inger N, van Weert Henk C P M, van Dijk C Niek, Struijs Peter A A

机构信息

*Department of General Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis †Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam §Department of Health and General Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam ‡Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Spaarne Ziekenhuis, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Pediatr Orthop. 2016 Mar;36(2):152-7. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000417.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Calcaneal apophysitis is a frequent cause of heel pain in children and is known to have a significant negative effect on the quality of life in affected children. The most effective treatment is currently unknown. The purpose of this study is to evaluate 3 frequently used conventional treatment modalities for calcaneal apophysitis.

METHODS

Three treatment modalities were evaluated and compared in a prospective randomized single-blind setting: a pragmatic wait and see protocol versus a heel raise inlay (ViscoHeel; Bauerfeind) versus an eccentric exercise regime under physiotherapeutic supervision. Treatment duration was 10 weeks.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

age between 8 and 15 years old, at least 4 weeks of heel pain complaints due to calcaneal apophysitis based, with a minimal Faces Pain Scale-Revised of 3 points. Primary exclusion criteria included other causes of heel pain and previous similar treatment. Primary outcome was Faces Pain Scale-Revised at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction and Oxford Ankle and Foot Questionnaire (OAFQ). Points of measure were at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principles.

RESULTS

A total of 101 subjects were included. Three subjects were lost to follow-up. At 6 weeks, the heel raise subjects were more satisfied compared with both other groups (P<0.01); the heel raise group improved significantly compared with the wait and see group for OAFQ Children (P<0.01); the physical therapy group showed significant improvement compared with the wait and see group for OAFQ Parents (P<0.01). Each treatment modality showed significant improvement of all outcome measures during follow-up (P<0.005). No clinical relevant differences were found between the respective treatment modalities at final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with wait and see, a heel raise inlay, or physical therapy each resulted in a clinical relevant and statistical significant reduction of heel pain due to calcaneal apophysitis. No significant difference in heel pain reduction was found between individual treatment regimes. Calcaneal apophysitis is effectively treated by the evaluated regimes. Physicians should deliberate with patients and parents regarding the preferred treatment.

摘要

背景

跟骨骨骺炎是儿童足跟痛的常见原因,已知会对患病儿童的生活质量产生重大负面影响。目前尚不清楚最有效的治疗方法。本研究的目的是评估3种常用的跟骨骨骺炎传统治疗方式。

方法

在一项前瞻性随机单盲研究中对三种治疗方式进行评估和比较:实用的观察等待方案、足跟垫高鞋垫(ViscoHeel;Bauerfeind)以及在物理治疗师监督下的离心运动方案。治疗持续时间为10周。

纳入标准

年龄在8至15岁之间,因跟骨骨骺炎导致足跟疼痛至少4周,面部疼痛量表修订版最低为3分。主要排除标准包括足跟痛的其他原因和先前的类似治疗。主要结局指标是3个月时的面部疼痛量表修订版。次要结局指标包括患者满意度以及牛津踝关节与足部问卷(OAFQ)。测量时间点为基线、6周和3个月。根据意向性分析原则进行分析。

结果

共纳入101名受试者。3名受试者失访。在6周时,与其他两组相比,足跟垫高组的受试者满意度更高(P<0.01);与观察等待组相比,足跟垫高组在OAFQ儿童版方面有显著改善(P<0.01);与观察等待组相比,物理治疗组在OAFQ家长版方面有显著改善(P<0.01)。在随访期间,每种治疗方式在所有结局指标上均有显著改善(P<0.005)。在最终随访时,各治疗方式之间未发现临床相关差异。

结论

观察等待、足跟垫高鞋垫或物理治疗均能使跟骨骨骺炎导致的足跟痛在临床和统计学上显著减轻。各治疗方案在减轻足跟痛方面未发现显著差异。所评估的治疗方案能够有效治疗跟骨骨骺炎。医生应与患者及家长商讨首选的治疗方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验