Clinical trial NCT06174142: Comparing Two Protocols of Shock Wave Therapy for Patients With Plantar Fasciitis
Official title: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Two Protocols of Shock Wave Therapy for Patients With Plantar Fasciitis
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Phase: NA
Conditions: Plantar Fasciitis
Lead sponsor: University of Sharjah
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2023-12-18
Enrollment: 64
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 20
Maximum age (years): 50
Standard ages: ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: This randomized trial compares two shock wave therapy protocols in plantar fasciitis treatment against a sham control. Group A receives high-frequency therapy (15 Hz, intensity level 3), Group B low-frequency (10 Hz, intensity level 4), and Group C a sham treatment, all alongside physical therapy. The goal is to evaluate pain reduction and functional improvement after six sessions, with follow-up assessments to gauge effect durability.
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: The goal of this clinical trial is to compare the efficacy of two distinct shock wave therapy protocols and their impact on improving function and reducing pain in individuals with plantar fasciitis, a common cause of heel pain that affects millions worldwide.

The key questions the study aims to address are:

How effective is each shock wave therapy protocol in enhancing functional ability without pain in patients with plantar fasciitis? Does either protocol offer a significant benefit over the other in terms of pain relief and functional improvement after a course of six treatment sessions?

Participants will be randomly assigned to one of three groups and will engage in the study as follows:

Undergo six sessions of shock wave therapy with parameters specific to their assigned group.

Complete questionnaires assessing foot function and pain levels. Participate in evaluations before, during, and after the treatment to monitor their progress.

The three groups in the comparison are as follows:

Group A will receive shock wave therapy at a higher frequency and specific intensity, with a set number of impulses.

Group B will undergo therapy with a different frequency and intensity level but will receive the same number of impulses.

Group C, the control group, will receive a sham therapy, mirroring the treatment experience without the therapeutic effects to serve as a baseline for comparison.

The study is anticipated to delineate a more effective protocol for treating plantar fasciitis with shock wave therapy. The findings may contribute to enhanced treatment guidelines, potentially resulting in faster recovery times for patients. The participation of individuals in this research will offer valuable insights that could inform future therapeutic strategies for managing plantar fasciitis

Detailed description: This randomized controlled trial is designed to evaluate the efficacy of two distinct shock wave therapy protocols in treating plantar fasciitis, a condition that causes heel pain and can severely impact daily activities. The aim is to discern which protocol is more effective at improving functional abilities and reducing pain.

Plantar fasciitis typically manifests as a sharp pain at the bottom of the heel, often affecting individuals who engage in high-impact activities such as running. With the variability in treatment approaches, shock wave therapy has been recognized as a promising, non-invasive treatment method. The study seeks to address the current gaps in research by identifying the most beneficial treatment parameters of shock wave therapy.

Participants will be randomly allocated to one of three groups:

Group A will receive shock wave therapy with high-frequency settings. Group B will receive shock wave therapy with low-frequency settings but higher intensity.

Group C will serve as a control group, receiving sham shock wave therapy to provide a baseline for comparison.

All groups will partake in a consistent regimen of physical therapy exercises, ensuring that any differences in outcomes are attributable to the shock wave therapy parameters. The inclusion of these exercises is crucial as they contribute to recovery by stretching and strengthening the affected area.

To maintain the integrity of the trial, participants will be blinded to the shock wave therapy parameters they receive, thereby reducing potential bias. The study will feature comprehensive assessments at various points: before the intervention, halfway through the sessions, upon completion of the therapy, and during a follow-up phase to assess the durability of the effects.

The trial is anticipated to yield significant insights into the effectiveness of different shock wave therapy protocols, which will be instrumental in developing more refined treatment guidelines. Ultimately, these findings could enhance the quality of life for individuals with plantar fasciitis and guide clinical practice for the treatment of associated heel pain.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

1. The participants should present with unilateral pain
2. The participants' age will be ranged from 20-50 years old.
3. The participants should have the pain from for at least 6 weeks.
4. Moderate disability as assessed by the foot function index (FFI)
5. The Body Mass Index (BMI) should be normal.
6. The participants should have pronated feet (6-9 on the foot posture index)

Exclusion Criteria:

1. History of surgery or fracture
2. History of corticosteroid injection within 6 months
3. Unable to follow or understand the instructions
4. High BMI
5. Severe foot pronation (+10 on the foot posture index)

Primary outcomes:
measure: Pain Reduction
timeFrame: Baseline: Assessment before the start of intervention (Week 0). Mid-Point: After the 3rd session (end of Week 3). End of Treatment: After the 6th session (end of Week 6). Follow-Up: 12 weeks post-intervention (end of Week 18).
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Functional Improvement
timeFrame: Baseline: Assessment before the start of intervention (Week 0). Mid-Point: After the 3rd session (end of Week 3). End of Treatment: After the 6th session (end of Week 6). Follow-Up: 12 weeks post-intervention (end of Week 18).
Other outcomes:
Locations:
Study officials:
affiliation: PRS User
name: Fatima Alkalbani, Bsc
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: Riddle DL, Schappert SM. Volume of ambulatory care visits and patterns of care for patients diagnosed with plantar fasciitis: a national study of medical doctors. Foot Ankle Int. 2004 May;25(5):303-10. doi: 10.1177/107110070402500505.
citation: Dunn JE, Link CL, Felson DT, Crincoli MG, Keysor JJ, McKinlay JB. Prevalence of foot and ankle conditions in a multiethnic community sample of older adults. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Mar 1;159(5):491-8. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwh071.
citation: Petraglia F, Ramazzina I, Costantino C. Plantar fasciitis in athletes: diagnostic and treatment strategies. A systematic review. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2017 May 10;7(1):107-118. doi: 10.11138/mltj/2017.7.1.107. eCollection 2017 Jan-Mar.
citation: Leao RG, Azuma MM, Ambrosio GHC, Faloppa F, Takimoto ES, Tamaoki MJS. Effectiveness of shockwave therapy in the treatment of plantar fasciitis. Acta Ortop Bras. 2020 Jan-Feb;28(1):7-11. doi: 10.1590/1413-785220202801227402.
citation: Xu D, Jiang W, Huang D, Hu X, Wang Y, Li H, Zhou S, Gan K, Ma W. Comparison Between Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy and Local Corticosteroid Injection for Plantar Fasciitis. Foot Ankle Int. 2020 Feb;41(2):200-205. doi: 10.1177/1071100719891111. Epub 2019 Nov 19.
citation: Luffy L, Grosel J, Thomas R, So E. Plantar fasciitis: A review of treatments. JAAPA. 2018 Jan;31(1):20-24. doi: 10.1097/01.JAA.0000527695.76041.99.
citation: Schwartz EN, Su J. Plantar fasciitis: a concise review. Perm J. 2014 Winter;18(1):e105-7. doi: 10.7812/TPP/13-113.
citation: Thompson JV, Saini SS, Reb CW, Daniel JN. Diagnosis and management of plantar fasciitis. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2014 Dec;114(12):900-6. doi: 10.7556/jaoa.2014.177.
citation: Lemont H, Ammirati KM, Usen N. Plantar fasciitis: a degenerative process (fasciosis) without inflammation. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2003 May-Jun;93(3):234-7. doi: 10.7547/87507315-93-3-234.
citation: Gollwitzer H, Saxena A, DiDomenico LA, Galli L, Bouche RT, Caminear DS, Fullem B, Vester JC, Horn C, Banke IJ, Burgkart R, Gerdesmeyer L. Clinically relevant effectiveness of focused extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis: a randomized, controlled multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 May 6;97(9):701-8. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.01331.
citation: Rompe JD, Decking J, Schoellner C, Nafe B. Shock wave application for chronic plantar fasciitis in running athletes. A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2003 Mar-Apr;31(2):268-75. doi: 10.1177/03635465030310021901.
citation: Garrett TR, Neibert PJ. The effectiveness of a gastrocnemius-soleus stretching program as a therapeutic treatment of plantar fasciitis. J Sport Rehabil. 2013 Nov;22(4):308-12. doi: 10.1123/jsr.22.4.308. Epub 2013 May 22.
citation: Thong-On S, Bovonsunthonchai S, Vachalathiti R, Intiravoranont W, Suwannarat S, Smith R. Effects of Strengthening and Stretching Exercises on the Temporospatial Gait Parameters in Patients With Plantar Fasciitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Rehabil Med. 2019 Dec;43(6):662-676. doi: 10.5535/arm.2019.43.6.662. Epub 2019 Dec 31.
citation: Cheing GL, Chang H. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2003 Jun;33(6):337-43. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2003.33.6.337. No abstract available.
citation: Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE. The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(6):561-70. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90220-4.
citation: Saag KG, Saltzman CL, Brown CK, Budiman-Mak E. The Foot Function Index for measuring rheumatoid arthritis pain: evaluating side-to-side reliability. Foot Ankle Int. 1996 Aug;17(8):506-10. doi: 10.1177/107110079601700814.
citation: Delgado DA, Lambert BS, Boutris N, McCulloch PC, Robbins AB, Moreno MR, Harris JD. Validation of Digital Visual Analog Scale Pain Scoring With a Traditional Paper-based Visual Analog Scale in Adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2018 Mar 23;2(3):e088. doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-17-00088. eCollection 2018 Mar.
citation: Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2001 Dec;8(12):1153-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01132.x.