低水平激光治疗与局部注射皮质类固醇治疗足底筋膜炎的疗效比较。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.5606/tftrd.2023.9923
Ayşegül Yetişir, Erkan Kozanoğlu, Bayram Kelle
{"title":"低水平激光治疗与局部注射皮质类固醇治疗足底筋膜炎的疗效比较。","authors":"Ayşegül Yetişir,&nbsp;Erkan Kozanoğlu,&nbsp;Bayram Kelle","doi":"10.5606/tftrd.2023.9923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of the study was to compare low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and local corticosteroid injection in the treatment of plantar fasciitis.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This retrospective study was performed with 56 patients (6 males, 50 females; mean age: 44.7±10.1 years; range, 18 to 65 years) between January 2015 and March 2016. The patients were equally divided into two groups: Group 1, comprising patients who underwent a one-time local corticosteroid injection into the heel by the same physician, and Group 2, including patients who had gallium arsenide laser therapy at a wavelength of 904 nm lasting 10 sessions. Evaluations were done at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and two weeks, one month, and three months after the post-treatment evaluation. The post-treatment evaluation was accepted as the 10<sup>th</sup> day after the injection in Group 1 and as the time after the last session of the laser treatment in Group 2. Each visit was compared with the previous visit for within-group analysis. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Heel Tenderness Index (HTI), and Foot Function Index (FFI) were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pain scores in Group 1 and Group 2 were not associated with statistically significant differences (p>0.05). Within-groups analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences concerning VAS subgroups (p <0.05), except for Group 2's resting VAS values (p=0.159). No statistically significant differences were found between groups in the means of FFI scores (p>0.05). Statistically significant differences were observed regarding within-group analyses for all subscores (p <0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups for all visits regarding HTI scores (p>0.05). Statistically significant differences were found between baseline and the first after-treatment visit in all groups (p <0.05). Statistically significant differences were found in the first (p=0.020) and third (p=0.010) months compared to the one-week follow-up in Group 2 regarding HTI scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both LLLT and local corticosteroid injection for plantar fasciitis have positive effects for three months after treatment. However, LLLT is more effective than local corticosteroid injection at the end of the third month in local tenderness.</p>","PeriodicalId":56043,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/68/2d/TurkJPhysMedRehab-69-008.PMC10186012.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of effects of low level laser therapy and local corticosteroid injection in the treatment of plantar fasciitis.\",\"authors\":\"Ayşegül Yetişir,&nbsp;Erkan Kozanoğlu,&nbsp;Bayram Kelle\",\"doi\":\"10.5606/tftrd.2023.9923\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of the study was to compare low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and local corticosteroid injection in the treatment of plantar fasciitis.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This retrospective study was performed with 56 patients (6 males, 50 females; mean age: 44.7±10.1 years; range, 18 to 65 years) between January 2015 and March 2016. The patients were equally divided into two groups: Group 1, comprising patients who underwent a one-time local corticosteroid injection into the heel by the same physician, and Group 2, including patients who had gallium arsenide laser therapy at a wavelength of 904 nm lasting 10 sessions. Evaluations were done at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and two weeks, one month, and three months after the post-treatment evaluation. The post-treatment evaluation was accepted as the 10<sup>th</sup> day after the injection in Group 1 and as the time after the last session of the laser treatment in Group 2. Each visit was compared with the previous visit for within-group analysis. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Heel Tenderness Index (HTI), and Foot Function Index (FFI) were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pain scores in Group 1 and Group 2 were not associated with statistically significant differences (p>0.05). Within-groups analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences concerning VAS subgroups (p <0.05), except for Group 2's resting VAS values (p=0.159). No statistically significant differences were found between groups in the means of FFI scores (p>0.05). Statistically significant differences were observed regarding within-group analyses for all subscores (p <0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups for all visits regarding HTI scores (p>0.05). Statistically significant differences were found between baseline and the first after-treatment visit in all groups (p <0.05). Statistically significant differences were found in the first (p=0.020) and third (p=0.010) months compared to the one-week follow-up in Group 2 regarding HTI scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both LLLT and local corticosteroid injection for plantar fasciitis have positive effects for three months after treatment. However, LLLT is more effective than local corticosteroid injection at the end of the third month in local tenderness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/68/2d/TurkJPhysMedRehab-69-008.PMC10186012.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5606/tftrd.2023.9923\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5606/tftrd.2023.9923","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是比较低水平激光治疗(LLLT)和局部皮质类固醇注射治疗足底筋膜炎。患者和方法:回顾性研究56例患者(男6例,女50例;平均年龄:44.7±10.1岁;从2015年1月到2016年3月,年龄从18岁到65岁不等。这些患者被平均分为两组:第一组患者接受了同一位医生的一次性局部皮质类固醇注射,第二组患者接受了波长为904 nm的砷化镓激光治疗,持续10次。分别在治疗前、治疗后、治疗后2周、1个月、3个月进行评估。治疗后评价,1组为注射后第10天,2组为最后一次激光治疗后的时间。每次访问与前一次访问进行组内分析。评估视觉模拟评分(VAS)、足跟压痛指数(HTI)和足部功能指数(FFI)。结果:1、2组患者疼痛评分差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。组内分析显示VAS亚组间差异有统计学意义(p 0.05)。在组内分析中,各分值的差异有统计学意义(p 0.05)。各组治疗后基线与治疗后首次访视差异均有统计学意义(p)。结论:治疗后3个月,LLLT和局部注射皮质类固醇治疗足底筋膜炎均有积极效果。然而,在第三个月结束时,LLLT比局部皮质类固醇注射对局部压痛更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of effects of low level laser therapy and local corticosteroid injection in the treatment of plantar fasciitis.

Objectives: The purpose of the study was to compare low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and local corticosteroid injection in the treatment of plantar fasciitis.

Patients and methods: This retrospective study was performed with 56 patients (6 males, 50 females; mean age: 44.7±10.1 years; range, 18 to 65 years) between January 2015 and March 2016. The patients were equally divided into two groups: Group 1, comprising patients who underwent a one-time local corticosteroid injection into the heel by the same physician, and Group 2, including patients who had gallium arsenide laser therapy at a wavelength of 904 nm lasting 10 sessions. Evaluations were done at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and two weeks, one month, and three months after the post-treatment evaluation. The post-treatment evaluation was accepted as the 10th day after the injection in Group 1 and as the time after the last session of the laser treatment in Group 2. Each visit was compared with the previous visit for within-group analysis. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Heel Tenderness Index (HTI), and Foot Function Index (FFI) were assessed.

Results: Pain scores in Group 1 and Group 2 were not associated with statistically significant differences (p>0.05). Within-groups analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences concerning VAS subgroups (p <0.05), except for Group 2's resting VAS values (p=0.159). No statistically significant differences were found between groups in the means of FFI scores (p>0.05). Statistically significant differences were observed regarding within-group analyses for all subscores (p <0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups for all visits regarding HTI scores (p>0.05). Statistically significant differences were found between baseline and the first after-treatment visit in all groups (p <0.05). Statistically significant differences were found in the first (p=0.020) and third (p=0.010) months compared to the one-week follow-up in Group 2 regarding HTI scores.

Conclusion: Both LLLT and local corticosteroid injection for plantar fasciitis have positive effects for three months after treatment. However, LLLT is more effective than local corticosteroid injection at the end of the third month in local tenderness.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (Formerly published as Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi) is the official journal of the Turkish Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. The journal is an international open-access, double-blind peer-reviewed periodical journal bringing the latest developments in all aspects of physical medicine and rehabilitation, and related fields. The journal publishes original articles, review articles, editorials, case reports (limited), letters to the editors. The target readership includes academic members, specialists, residents working in the fields of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. The language of the journal is English and it is published quarterly (in March, June, September, and December).
期刊最新文献
Comprehensive analysis of publication of physical medicine and rehabilitation theses in Türkiye between years 2010 and 2020: Academic productivity and related factors. Effect of platelet-rich plasma injections versus placebo on pain and quality of life in patients with hip osteoarthritis: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Local ozone injection compared to local glucocorticoid injection in carpal tunnel syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. Which aerobic exercise is more effective in Parkinson's patients? Cycle ergometer versus body weight-supported treadmill. Adherence to complete decongestive therapy in patients with postmastectomy lymphedema and related factors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1