Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jan 6;10(1):e24229.
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24229. eCollection 2024 Jan 15.

Small needle-knife versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the treatment of plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chaoqun Feng  1 , Junjie Yao  2 , Yizhou Xie  1 , Min Zhao  3 , Youpeng Hu  1 , Ziang Hu  4 , Ruoyan Li  1 , Haoyang Wu  1 , Yuanxin Ge  1 , Fei Yang  1 , Xiaohong Fan  1
Affiliations

Small needle-knife versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the treatment of plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chaoqun Feng et al. Heliyon. .

Abstract

Background: Plantar fasciitis (PF) is the most common cause of chronic heel pain among adults. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is the recommended in the current guidelines, and the small needle-knife yields acceptable clinical effects for musculoskeletal pain.

Objective: To systematically compare the efficacy of the small needle-knife versus ESWT for the treatment of PF.

Methods: The present review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (i.e., "PROSPERO", CRD42023448813). Two of the authors searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the small needle-knife versus ESWT for the treatment of PF, and collected outcomes including curative effect, pain intensity, and function. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook Risk of Bias tool and the quality of the RCTs was evaluated according to the Jadad Scale. The same authors independently performed data extraction from the included studies, which were imported into Review Manager version 5.4.1(Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) for meta-analysis.

Results: The initial literature search retrieved 886 studies, of which 6 were eventually included in this study. Meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in curative effect (OR = 1.87; 95 % CI [0.80, 4.37], p = .15) nor short-term pain improvement (MD = 2.20; 95 % CI [-2.77, 7.16], p = .39) between the small needle-knife and ESWT. However, the small needle-knife may be more effective than ESWT for pain improvement in mid-term (MD = 9.11; 95 % CI [5.08, 13.15], p＜ .00001) and long-term follow-ups (MD = 10.71; 95 % CI [2.18, 19.25], p＜ .00001). Subgroup analysis revealed that the small needle-knife combined with a corticosteroid injection yielded a statistically significant difference in reduction of pain intensity at all follow-ups (MD = 4.84; 95 % CI [1.33, 8.36], p = .007; MD = 10.99; 95 % CI [8.30, 13.69], p＜ .00001; MD = 17.87; 95 % CI [15.26, 20.48], p＜ .00001). Meta-analysis revealed no statistical differences in short-term (MD = 1.34; 95 % CI [-3.19, 5.86], p = .56) and mid-term (MD = 2.75; 95 % CI [-1.21, 6.72], p = . 17) functional improvement between the needle-knife and ESWT groups. In a subgroup analysis of moderate-quality studies, the small needle-knife demonstrated a favorable effect on mid-term functional improvement (MD = 1.58; 95 % CI [0.52, 2.65], p = .004), with low heterogeneity (χ2 = 0.77, p = .038, I2 = 0 %). Conclusion: Pain reduction and functional improvement are essential for the treatment of PF. Therefore, treatment using the small needle-knife may be superior to ESWT. Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis may provide alternative treatment options for patients with PF as well as more reliable, evidence-based recommendations supporting use of the small needle-knife.

Keywords: Extracorporeal shock wave; Meta-analysis; Plantar fasciitis; Small needle-knife; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Risk of bias graph.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The meta-analysis results of curative effects.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The meta-analysis results of pain intensity.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
The meta-analysis results of function.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Martin R.L., Davenport T.E., Reischl S.F., et al. Heel pain-plantar fasciitis: revision 2014[J] J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2014;44(11):A1–A33. - PubMed
    1. Muth C.C. Plantar fasciitis[J] JAMA. 2017;318(4):400. - PubMed
    1. Beeson P. Plantar fasciopathy: revisiting the risk factors[J] Foot Ankle Surg. 2014;20(3):160–165. - PubMed
    1. Fleischer A.E., Albright R.H., Crews R.T., et al. Prognostic value of diagnostic sonography in patients with plantar fasciitis[J] J. Ultrasound Med. 2015;34(10):1729–1735. - PubMed
    1. Bai W.B., Lu L.R., Lu J., et al. Progress in diagnosis and treatment of plantar fasciitis[J] Chinese Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2021;14(9):805–810.

LinkOut - more resources