No abstract

Background Tendinopathies of the lower extremity (e.g. Achilles, patellar, and plantar heel pain) are common in both general and sporting populations. However, the prevalence and incidence in Danish general practice is unknown. The aim was to determine the prevalence and incidence rate of lower-extremity tendinopathies in a Danish general practice. Methods In this registry-based study, we extracted data from the electronic patient files of all patients in a single Danish general practice. The practice included 8836 patients. We searched ICPC-2 codes to identify patients with either of the following lower-extremity tendinopathies: plantar heel pain; Achilles tendinopathy; patellar tendinopathy; greater trochanteric pain syndrome or adductor tendinopathy. We defined an incident and prevalent case as a patient with a consultation because of tendinopathy in 2016 only. A prevalent, but not incident case was a patient with consultations in both 2015 and 2016. Incidence and prevalence were expressed as the number of patients with a tendinopathy per 1000 registered patients. Results The prevalence and incidence rate were 16.6 and 7.9 per 1000 registered patients, respectively. Plantar heel pain was the most prevalent tendinopathy and accounted for 39% of lower-extremity tendinopathies. Patients with tendinopathies were significantly older than all registered patients (46.0 years (95%CI: 43.3;48.7) versus 38.8 years (95%CI: 38.4;39.3), respectively). Conclusions Lower-extremity tendinopathies, especially plantar heel pain, had a high prevalence and incidence rate in a Danish general practice. In a typical general practice with 5000 patients, general practitioners should expect to see more than 80 patients with a lower-extremity tendinopathy every year.

CRD42015024812.

Isometric exercise is commonly recommended for immediate pain relief in individuals suffering from lower limb tendinopathies, despite the limited evidence supporting its analgesic effect. Due to the similarities between plantar fasciopathy and tendinopathies, the aim of this trial was to investigate the acute effect of isometric exercise on pain, compared to isotonic exercise, or walking, in individuals with plantar fasciopathy. We recruited 20 individuals with plantar fasciopathy for this prospectively-registered, participant-blinded, randomized, superiority crossover trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03264729). Participants attended three exercise sessions (isometric, isotonic, or walking) in a randomized order, within a 2-week period. Both isometric and isotonic exercises were performed standing with the forefoot on a step bench, while walking was performed barefoot. The primary outcome was pain (measured on a 0-100-mm VAS) during a pain-aggravating activity. Secondary outcomes included pressure pain threshold (PPT) under the heel, and plantar fascia thickness (PFT). All outcomes were measured before and after each exercise session. There were no significant differences between the three exercises on pain (P = 0.753), PPTs (P = 0.837), or PFT (P = 0.718). Further, there was no change in pain from before to after any of the exercises (isometric exercise 2.7 mm [95% CI: -12.2; 6.8], isotonic exercise -3.4 mm [95% CI: -5.0; 11.8], or walking 1.6 mm [95% CI: -16.1; 12.9]). Contrary to expectations, isometric exercise was no better than isotonic exercise or walking at reducing pain in individuals with plantar fasciopathy. None of the exercises induced any systematic analgesic effect.

Real-time feedback on contraction time resulted in the ability to perform exercises closer to the prescribed dose and also induced larger strength gains.

BackgroundPlantar heel pain (PHP) is common. Foot orthoses are often applied as treatment for PHP, even though there is little evidence to support this.ObjectiveTo investigate the effects of different orthoses on pain, function and self-reported recovery in patients with PHP and compare them with other conservative interventions.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesA systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar up to January 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing foot orthoses with a control (defined as no intervention, sham or other type of conservative treatment) reporting on pain, function or self-reported recovery in patients with PHP.ResultsTwenty studies investigating eight different types of foot orthoses were included in the review. Most studies were of high quality. Pooled data from six studies showed no difference between prefabricated orthoses and sham orthoses for pain at short term (mean difference (MD) of 0.26 (95% CI −0.09 to 0.60)). No difference was found between sham orthoses and custom orthoses for pain at short term (MD 0.22 (95% CI −0.05 to 0.50)), nor was there a difference between prefabricated orthoses and custom orthoses for pain at short term (MD 0.03 (95% CI −0.15 to 0.22)). For the majority of other interventions, no significant differences were found.ConclusionsFoot orthoses are not superior for improving pain and function compared with sham or other conservative treatment in patients with PHP.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42015029659.

No abstract

No abstract