Scholarlink

<p>The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of LILT, HILT and ESWT for chronic PF.&#xa0;A thorough literature search across several databases yielded 108 studies. After screening for relevance, 10 prospective studies involving 803 patients were included in the analysis. Data was pooled using a random-effects model, with the mean difference (MD) and 95%CI as the main statistical measures.&#xa0;Our meta-analysis found no significant difference between ESWT and HILT in the change of VAS score and FFI score from pretreatment to post-treatment scores (MD: -0.50, 95% CI: -1.42 to 0.42, <i>P</i> = 0.28), and (MD: -8.08, 95% CI: -22.09 to 5.94, <i>P</i> = 0.26), respectively. Also, no difference between HILT and LILT in the change of VAS score from pretreatment to post-treatment scores (MD: 1.95, 95% CI: -0.84 to 4.74, <i>P</i> = 0.17). Additionally, our analysis revealed no significant difference between ESWT and LILT in the change of AFOS score from pretreatment to post-treatment scores (MD: -1.64, 95% CI: -10.51 to 7.23, <i>P</i> = 0.72).&#xa0;The analysis concluded that ESWT, LILT, and HILT all demonstrate similar efficacy in treating chronic plantar fasciitis, with no significant advantages observed for any specific therapy.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of laser therapy and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the treatment of patients with plantar fasciitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月11日

查看全文
  • Muteb N. Alotaibi,
  • Abdullah M. Alharran,
  • Ohood Yahya Alasmari,
  • Mohammad Ama Mohammad,
  • Fahad Ama Mohammad,
  • Ahmad A. Alahmad,
  • Bader Alshuaib,
  • Leen Albraik,
  • Yousef Marwan

摘要

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of LILT, HILT and ESWT for chronic PF. A thorough literature search across several databases yielded 108 studies. After screening for relevance, 10 prospective studies involving 803 patients were included in the analysis. Data was pooled using a random-effects model, with the mean difference (MD) and 95%CI as the main statistical measures. Our meta-analysis found no significant difference between ESWT and HILT in the change of VAS score and FFI score from pretreatment to post-treatment scores (MD: -0.50, 95% CI: -1.42 to 0.42, P = 0.28), and (MD: -8.08, 95% CI: -22.09 to 5.94, P = 0.26), respectively. Also, no difference between HILT and LILT in the change of VAS score from pretreatment to post-treatment scores (MD: 1.95, 95% CI: -0.84 to 4.74, P = 0.17). Additionally, our analysis revealed no significant difference between ESWT and LILT in the change of AFOS score from pretreatment to post-treatment scores (MD: -1.64, 95% CI: -10.51 to 7.23, P = 0.72). The analysis concluded that ESWT, LILT, and HILT all demonstrate similar efficacy in treating chronic plantar fasciitis, with no significant advantages observed for any specific therapy.