A New Protocol for Plantar Heel Pain: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
</div>  
</div>  
== Introduction ==
== Introduction ==
The previous literature reviews on the risk factors, assessment tools and treatment options for plantar heel pain (PHP) identified a lack of support for any of the commonly used assessment and treatment options for PHP (Saban 2017, Salvioli 2017, Morissey 2021, Babatunde 2018). This highlighted the need for appropriate assessment and treatment tools to assess and manage PHP which led to the development of a new tool for PHP (Saban 2021). This protocol involves:
The previous literature reviews on the risk factors, assessment tools and treatment options for plantar heel pain (PHP) identified a lack of support for any of the commonly used assessment and treatment options for PHP <ref name=":0">Morrissey D, Cotchett M, J'Bari AS, Prior T, Griffiths IB, Rathleff MS, Gulle H, Vicenzino B, Barton CJ. [https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/early/2021/05/09/bjsports-2019-101970.full.pdf Management of plantar heel pain: a best practice guide informed by a systematic review, expert clinical reasoning and patient values]. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2021 Mar 30.  </ref><ref name=":1">Salvioli S, Guidi M, Marcotulli G. [https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.foot.2017.05.004 The effectiveness of conservative, non-pharmacological treatment, of plantar heel pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis]. The Foot. 2017 Dec 1;33:57-67.    </ref><ref name=":2">Babatunde OO, Legha A, Littlewood C, Chesterton LS, Thomas MJ, Menz HB, van der Windt D, Roddy E. [https://eprints.keele.ac.uk/5014/1/PHP%20NMA%20Manuscript%20updated%20May%202018_Accepted.pdf Comparative effectiveness of treatment options for plantar heel pain: a systematic review with network meta-analysis]. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019 Feb 1;53(3):182-94. </ref><ref name=":3">Saban B, Masharawi Y. [https://www.physiotherapyjournal.com/article/S0031-9406(16)30032-3/fulltext Three single leg standing tests for clinical assessment of chronic plantar heel pain syndrome: static stance, half-squat and heel rise]. Physiotherapy. 2017 Jun 1;103(2):237-44.  </ref>. This highlighted the need for appropriate assessment and treatment tools to assess and manage PHP which led to the development of a new tool for PHP<ref name=":4">Bernice Saban 2021. A New Protocol for Plantar Heel Pain. Physioplus Course. 2021</ref>. This protocol involves:


* an assessment tool
* an assessment tool
Line 21: Line 21:
* less expensive
* less expensive


than diagnostic imaging methods (Schwieterman 2013).
than diagnostic imaging methods <ref>Schwieterman B, Haas D, Columber K, Knupp D, Cook C. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3812842/pdf/ijspt-08-416.pdf Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination tests of the ankle/foot complex: a systematic review]. International journal of sports physical therapy. 2013 Aug;8(4):416.     </ref>.


In pursuit of accurately assessing PHPS, two tests were found to reproduce the heel pain experienced by an individual with PHPS during a regular foot and ankle evaluation, namely the (Figure 1) (Saban 2021)
In pursuit of accurately assessing PHPS, two tests were found to reproduce the heel pain experienced by an individual with PHPS during a regular foot and ankle evaluation, namely the (Figure 1) <ref name=":4" />


* Single leg heel raise
* Single leg heel raise
Line 31: Line 31:
Figure 1. Two clinical tests reproducing PHP  
Figure 1. Two clinical tests reproducing PHP  


This raised the question of why these tests would provoke pain in the heel (Figure 2) (Saban 2021). Considering that PHPS is associated with weight-bearing, could the reproduction of the pain be attributed to an increase in weight-bearing? Yet, looking at the motions, the weight is shifted from the heel to the forefoot which means reduced weight-bearing on the heel. If not because of increased weight-bearing, could these tests then be causing an increase in stress in the plantar fascia? But once again if analysing the motions during the test, during the:
This raised the question of why these tests would provoke pain in the heel (Figure 2) <ref name=":4" />. Considering that PHPS is associated with weight-bearing, could the reproduction of the pain be attributed to an increase in weight-bearing? Yet, looking at the motions, the weight is shifted from the heel to the forefoot which means reduced weight-bearing on the heel. If not because of increased weight-bearing, could these tests then be causing an increase in stress in the plantar fascia? But once again if analysing the motions during the test, during the:


* Single leg heel raise, the increased extension of the toes might increase tension in the facia, but plantar flexion at the heel again reduces the tension
* Single leg heel raise, the increased extension of the toes might increase tension in the facia, but plantar flexion at the heel again reduces the tension
* Single leg mini squat, dorsiflexion of the ankle will increase fascial tension which is again reduced by flexion of the knee (Saban 2021).
* Single leg mini squat, dorsiflexion of the ankle will increase fascial tension which is again reduced by flexion of the knee <ref name=":4" />.
 
If there is then an increase in fascial tension, it will be minimal considering how movements cancel each other out.
If there is then an increase in fascial tension, it will be minimal considering how movements cancel each other out.


Figure 2. Proposed reasons for the pain provocation in the heel
Figure 2. Proposed reasons for the pain provocation in the heel


Following these findings, Saban & Masharawi (2017) investigated if these tests were able to reproduce heel pain in a larger population, and conducted a clinical trial involving 40 patients with a typical presentation of PHP (Figure 3) (Saban 2021).
Following these findings, Saban & Masharawi <ref name=":3" /> investigated if these tests were able to reproduce heel pain in a larger population, and conducted a clinical trial involving 40 patients with a typical presentation of PHP (Figure 3) <ref name=":4" />.


Figure 3. Inclusion criteria for participants in the trial assessing the reliability of three clinical tests for assessing PHP (Saban 2017, 2021)
Figure 3. Inclusion criteria for participants in the trial assessing the reliability of three clinical tests for assessing PHP <ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" />


Three tests were included in the study - the single-leg static stance test, single-leg half squat and the single-leg heel raise with test measures as described in Figure 4 (Saban 2017, 2021).
Three tests were included in the study - the single-leg static stance test, single-leg half squat and the single-leg heel raise with test measures as described in Figure 4 <ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" />.


Figure 3. Inclusion criteria for participants in the trial assessing the reliability of three clinical tests for assessing PHP (Saban 2017, 2021)


Three tests were included in the study - the single-leg static stance test, single-leg half squat and the single-leg heel raise with test measures as described in Figure 4 (Saban 2017, 2021).
Figure 4. Description of the clinical tests used <ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" />. P1 refers to the appearance of pain.


Figure 5. Outcome measures utilised (Saban 2017, 2021)
The measures used to assess the tests included (Figure 5):<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" />
 
* the appearance of the first painful sensation (P1) assessed with the visual analogue scale (VAS) and including the level of achievement of the performance (repetitions/seconds)
* The functional status of the patient, measured using a computerised version of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS)
 
 
Figure 5. Outcome measures utilised <ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" />


The aims of this study were to investigate whether
The aims of this study were to investigate whether


* these tests were reliable and valid in patients with PHPS
* these tests were reliable and valid in patients with PHPS
* Combining the three tests would enhance the possibility of a positive test response from each patient (Saban 2017, Saban 2021)
* Combining the three tests would enhance the possibility of a positive test response from each patient <ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" />
 
 
The procedure of the study involved an interview and completion of the functional status questionnaire by the patient, followed by an assessment of the patient by Rater 1 using the three clinical tests and a re-assessment of the same tests 30 minutes later by Rater 2 as a measurement of the interrater reliability of the tests. The patient was reassessed by Rater 1 one week later in order to establish the intrarater reliability of the clinical tests (Figure 6) <ref name=":3" />.


The procedure of the study involved an interview and completion of the functional status questionnaire by the patient, followed by an assessment of the patient by Rater 1 using the three clinical tests and a re-assessment of the same tests 30 minutes later by Rater 2 as a measurement of the interrater reliability of the tests. The patient was reassessed by Rater 1 one week later in order to establish the intrarater reliability of the clinical tests (Figure 6) (Saban 2017).
Figure 6. The procedure of the clinical trial <ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" />


Figure 6. The procedure of the clinical trial (Saban 2017, 2021)
Moderate to high levels of interrater and intrarater reliability were reported for all the tests and a correlation was reported between the level of pain (VAS) and the functional scale (LEFS) (Figure 7) <ref name=":3" />.


Moderate to high levels of interrater and intrarater reliability were reported for all the tests and a correlation was reported between the level of pain (VAS) and the functional scale (LEFS) (Figure 7) (Saban 2017).
Figure 7. Reliability indices for the clinical tests <ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" />


Figure 7. Reliability indices for the clinical tests (Saban 2017, Saban 2021)
The results of the frequency of a positive pain response for each individual test as well as a combination of the tests can be found in Figure 8 <ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" />.


The results of the frequency of a positive pain response for each individual test as well as a combination of the tests can be found in Figure 8 (Saban 2017, Saban 2021).
Figure 8. Frequency of a positive pain response for the clinical tests


It is important to also mention that some of the patients only experienced pain towards the end of the testing protocol, which indicates that many repetitions might be needed in order to reproduce the patient’s pain.
It is important to also mention that some of the patients only experienced pain towards the end of the testing protocol, which indicates that many repetitions might be needed in order to reproduce the patient’s pain.


In conclusion on the assessment tools, the study by Saban & Masharawi (2017) indicates the existence of simple, relevant and reliable clinical tests to use for patients with PHPS that are performance-based, easily applied and appropriate for the assessment of PHPS.
In conclusion on the assessment tools, the study by Saban & Masharawi <ref name=":3" /> indicates the existence of simple, relevant and reliable clinical tests to use for patients with PHPS that are performance-based, easily applied and appropriate for the assessment of PHPS.


Considering the presence of pain in the heel with PHPS, the source of pain has often been assumed to be at the level of the heel, which is a prime example of the thought distortions described by Daniel Kahneman when he posed his quiz question (Figure 9) (Kahneman ref). If one opens the mind and looks further, it becomes clear that the pain experienced in PHPS might not be in the heel after all (Saban 2021).
Considering the presence of pain in the heel with PHPS, the source of pain has often been assumed to be at the level of the heel, which is a prime example of the thought distortions described by Daniel Kahneman when he posed his quiz question (Figure 9) <ref name=":5">Kahneman D. [https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555 Thinking, fast and slow]. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. 2011.</ref>. If one opens the mind and looks further, it becomes clear that the pain experienced in PHPS might not be in the heel after all <ref name=":4" />.


Figure 9. Quiz question by Daniel Kahneman (Saban 2021)
 
Figure 9. Quiz question by Daniel Kahneman <ref name=":4" /><ref name=":5" />


== Treatment Protocol for PHP ==
== Treatment Protocol for PHP ==
Similar to the literature on assessment tools for PHPS, no definite conclusions have been made for the treatment of PHPS due to a lack of high-quality evidence (Salvioli 2017, Morissey 2021, Babatunde 2018, Rasenberg 2019). Hence, following the discussion on the assessment of PHP, it is necessary to raise the question of how then to progress to the treatment thereof. If the provocation of the heel pain is not from an increase in weight-bearing or fascial stress, could it then be due to a contraction of the calf muscle considering that the
Similar to the literature on assessment tools for PHPS, no definite conclusions have been made for the treatment of PHPS due to a lack of high-quality evidence <ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref>Rasenberg N, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Bindels PJ, van der Lei J, van Middelkoop M. [https://bjgp.org/content/bjgp/69/688/e801.full.pdf Incidence, prevalence, and management of plantar heel pain: a retrospective cohort study in Dutch primary care]. British Journal of General Practice. 2019 Nov 1;69(688):e801-8.      </ref>. Hence, following the discussion on the assessment of PHP, it is necessary to raise the question of how then to progress to the treatment thereof. If the provocation of the heel pain is not from an increase in weight-bearing or fascial stress, could it then be due to a contraction of the calf muscle considering that the


* heel raise test incorporates concentric contraction of the calve muscles and the
* heel raise test incorporates concentric contraction of the calve muscles and the
* half-squat test involves eccentric contraction of the calve muscles?
* half-squat test involves eccentric contraction of the calve muscles?


Manual palpation of the plantar flexor muscles in the posterior calf on the affected leg in patients with PHPS revealed stiff, incompliant and painful soft tissue  (Saban 2014). Following the lack of evidence for the effective treatment of PHPS, a treatment protocol directed at the posterior calf muscles was proposed by Saban et al (2014). The aim of their study was to compare deep soft tissue massage to the posterior calf with muscles to a more common treatment approach directed to the area of the heel (Figure 10) (Saban 2014).


Similar to the literature on assessment tools for PHPS, no definite conclusions have been made for the treatment of PHPS due to a lack of high-quality evidence (Salvioli 2017, Morissey 2021, Babatunde 2018, Rasenberg 2019). Hence, following the discussion on the assessment of PHP, it is necessary to raise the question of how then to progress to the treatment thereof. If the provocation of the heel pain is not from an increase in weight-bearing or fascial stress, could it then be due to a contraction of the calf muscle considering that the
Manual palpation of the plantar flexor muscles in the posterior calf on the affected leg in patients with PHPS revealed stiff, incompliant and painful soft tissue <ref name=":6">Saban B, Deutscher D, Ziv T. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1356689X13001471?via%3Dihub Deep massage to posterior calf muscles in combination with neural mobilization exercises as a treatment for heel pain: a pilot randomized clinical trial]. Manual Therapy. 2014 Apr 1;19(2):102-8.    </ref>. Following the lack of evidence for the effective treatment of PHPS, a treatment protocol directed at the posterior calf muscles was proposed by Saban et al <ref name=":6" />. The aim of their study was to compare deep soft tissue massage to the posterior calf with muscles to a more common treatment approach directed to the area of the heel (Figure 10) <ref name=":6" />.


* heel raise test incorporates concentric contraction of the calve muscles and the
Figure 10. Aim of the study by Saban et al <ref name=":6" />
* half-squat test involves eccentric contraction of the calve muscles?
 
In their study, participants were divided into a study and a control group with the control group receiving a stretching protocol and ultrasound with commonly used settings, and the study group receiving the same stretching protocol but combined with deep tissue massage of the posterior calf muscles and a neural stretch (Figure 11) <ref name=":6" />.
 
Figure 11. Study protocol of the study by Saban et al <ref name=":6" />
 
The outcome measures used in the study included a functional status questionnaire (computerised version of LEFS) as the primary outcome and the level of first-step pain in the morning (VAS) as a secondary measure <ref name=":6" />. A visual representation of the flow of patients through the study can be found in Figure 12 <ref name=":6" />.
 
Figure 12. Flow of patients through the study by Saban et al <ref name=":6" />


Manual palpation of the plantar flexor muscles in the posterior calf on the affected leg in patients with PHPS revealed stiff, incompliant and painful soft tissue  (Saban 2014). Following the lack of evidence for the effective treatment of PHPS, a treatment protocol directed at the posterior calf muscles was proposed by Saban et al (2014). The aim of their study was to compare deep soft tissue massage to the posterior calf with muscles to a more common treatment approach directed to the area of the heel (Figure 10) (Saban 2014).
The characteristics of the patients at baseline were also compared by groups to look for similarities between groups at baseline. No statistically significant differences were found between groups at baseline and patients displayed similar ages, similar chronicity of the problem and similar scores on the functional scale and VAS scale at intake (Figures 13 and 14) <ref name=":6" />.


Figure 11. Study protocol of the study by Saban et al (2014)
Figure 11. Study protocol of the study by Saban et al (2014)
Line 94: Line 108:
The outcome measures used in the study included a functional status questionnaire (computerised version of LEFS) as the primary outcome and the level of first-step pain in the morning (VAS) as a secondary measure (Saban 2014). A visual representation of the flow of patients through the study can be found in Figure 12 (Saban 2014).
The outcome measures used in the study included a functional status questionnaire (computerised version of LEFS) as the primary outcome and the level of first-step pain in the morning (VAS) as a secondary measure (Saban 2014). A visual representation of the flow of patients through the study can be found in Figure 12 (Saban 2014).


Figure 11. Study protocol of the study by Saban et al (2014)
Figure 13. Baseline patient characteristics by treatment group <ref name=":4" /><ref name=":6" />
 
Figure 14. Baseline patient characteristics by treatment group <ref name=":4" /><ref name=":6" />


The outcome measures used in the study included a functional status questionnaire (computerised version of LEFS) as the primary outcome and the level of first-step pain in the morning (VAS) as a secondary measure (Saban 2014). A visual representation of the flow of patients through the study can be found in Figure 12 (Saban 2014).
Completion rates were similar between groups and also corresponded to those of 2 other studies investigating similar aspects to the study (Figure 15) <ref name=":6" /><ref name=":7">Bezalel T, Carmeli E, Katz-Leurer M. [https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.physio.2009.09.009 The effect of a group education programme on pain and function through knowledge acquisition and home-based exercise among patients with knee osteoarthritis: a parallel randomised single-blind clinical trial]. Physiotherapy. 2010 Jun 1;96(2):137-43.


Figure 13. Baseline patient characteristics by treatment group
</ref><ref name=":8">Deutscher D, Horn SD, Dickstein R, Hart DL, Smout RJ, Gutvirtz M, Ariel I. [https://www.archives-pmr.org/action/showPdf?pii=S0003-9993%2809%2900280-9 Associations between treatment processes, patient characteristics, and outcomes in outpatient physical therapy practice]. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2009 Aug 1;90(8):1349-63.


Figure 14. Baseline patient characteristics by treatment group
</ref>.


Completion rates were similar between groups and also corresponded to those of 2 other studies investigating similar aspects to the study (Figure 15) (Saban 2014, Bezalel 2010, Deutscher 2009).
Figure 15. Treatment completion rates <ref name=":6" /><ref name=":7" /><ref name=":8" />


Figure 15. Treatment completion rates (Saban 2014, Bezalel 2010, Deutscher 2009)
The results on the primary outcome of the study indicated that even though both groups improved on the functional scale, the deep massage group (DMS) improved by 15 points compared to the 6 point improvement in the Ultrasound/control (USS) group (Figure 16) <ref name=":6" />. Wang et al <ref>Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. [https://watermark.silverchair.com/ptj0957.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAsAwggK8BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKtMIICqQIBADCCAqIGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMtvNGcuQoO7lAIvMiAgEQgIICc-TGZyP6EGHG3O7lwW60ud1JvBjN1U8xOt-LT1BFF7vVyaSrxDO8yebao1N7wz-E124Ot5Gm61z3UEz0fSmOF0Pl3gPg-_VkyhGgoJDmlvYh5msPZw6oEaCHQq7Y5Rcno2Ghri5_kQMJS1VZaD-It4QmwsAcwrk1U26X6wu90EheBunjdH-sQFZchv_980V4sjp5sgTQ6nnu1htLhBHSuWG-Hp2nft8xGbIMoIXJL0mi0IQHndkB-GHf65mCdIvhM1QFSWsCWSstPbBALOmxCmrzO9v_HKuyNo_1FrwtZGh1FxQNsXpe41URu-4pLTRl9YRjiUBkLUT_bLMS7d_BCQRBf_RCR4N65wiRzYf-NPd87fL2cxPSt-wSH9C9moFEjxPHDvgjFmPOzbSa5zoW3TezejJDn2M294ksGyD1nikVObjFjZB3r28VBf4ZsCAeHp5jY3FMJHm1hoOk5pZxfytHwyuKvveArcT7OgqqPDBpT5mSb_BGwGKT9VwVdOg6vpaYw83AkcJ4BIFgkLNKCLQtixN6uvtSqRQAD1WqJjTalV-EwVbnvA8D74DjyQIFFbDHkMYOVQnswHP2aA5KEtaJlnmYAVpnX6Sk-vbSf44V7jNV87Dq6GBDVkiWZoswPSyfC3zmSmPg2uwzOO-w21H9f2JjkjXcn4I2i3WW5hNRc94jk3L1pduoPYb5USUSisL3QoND0jHl-7bq5qx33_NFKuDFqkUgZu6KWX1t6Nn1jEJT-iXc5O5yR3k7i-C_ezoNECqVlOK8h9Et5z9WaB_bNvlL3W8IpuexNWs2aNrxcEu1PHTZjolp772HnXMz6ehkZA Clinical interpretation of a lower-extremity functional scale–derived computerized adaptive test]. Physical therapy. 2009 Sep 1;89(9):957-68.


The results on the primary outcome of the study indicated that even though both groups improved on the functional scale, the deep massage group (DMS) improved by 15 points compared to the 6 point improvement in the Ultrasound/control (USS) group (Figure 16) (Saban 2014). Wang et al (2009) indicated that a change of 8 points is needed for any change to be clinically significant and therefore, even though the USS improved statistically, there was no real clinical change whereas the DMS improved both statistically and clinically (Figure 16) (Saban 2014).
</ref> indicated that a change of 8 points is needed for any change to be clinically significant and therefore, even though the USS improved statistically, there was no real clinical change whereas the DMS improved both statistically and clinically (Figure 16) <ref name=":6" />.


Figure 16. Results of the functional scale scores (Saban 2014)
Figure 16. Results of the functional scale scores <ref name=":4" /><ref name=":6" />


The level of first-step pain in the morning (VAS) decreased similarly in both groups with no significant difference (Figure 17) (Saban 2014). This could indicate that the complaint of first-step pain in the morning might only be one part of PHPS and that patients have other functional limitations that were picked up by the functional scale score (LEFS) (Saban 2021).
The level of first-step pain in the morning (VAS) decreased similarly in both groups with no significant difference (Figure 17) <ref name=":6" />. This could indicate that the complaint of first-step pain in the morning might only be one part of PHPS and that patients have other functional limitations that were picked up by the functional scale score (LEFS) <ref name=":4" />.


Figure 17. Results of VAS for first-step pain in the morning
Figure 17. Results of VAS for first-step pain in the morning <ref name=":4" /><ref name=":6" />


In the study by Saban et al (2014), deep massage therapy to the posterior calf muscles and neural mobilisation combined with stretching exercises had superior short-term functional scale outcomes compared to ultrasound treatment with stretching exercises. This treatment protocol is easy to use and effective for PHP and could therefore be recommended for individuals with PHPS (Saban 2014, Saban 2021).  
In the study by Saban et al <ref name=":6" />, deep massage therapy to the posterior calf muscles and neural mobilisation combined with stretching exercises had superior short-term functional scale outcomes compared to ultrasound treatment with stretching exercises. This treatment protocol is easy to use and effective for PHP and could therefore be recommended for individuals with PHPS <ref name=":4" /><ref name=":6" />.  


There are, however, some limitations to this study, including:(Saban 2014)
There are, however, some limitations to this study, including:<ref name=":6" />


* No record of daily self-exercise compliance
* No record of daily self-exercise compliance
* Short-term results only
* Short-term results only
* DMS group performed one additional exercise (SLR with DF) thereby introducing an additional variable into the trial
* DMS group performed one additional exercise (SLR with Dorsiflexion) thereby introducing an additional variable into the trial
 


This treatment approach is also supported by two other studies performed by Renan-Ordine et al (2011) (Figure 18) and Ajimsha et al (2014) (Figure 19). Renan-Ordine et al (2011) suggested myofascial trigger point therapy of the calf for PHP but the results of the study are not that clear and the clinical effect is unknown (Figure 18). Amjisha et al (2014) investigated the effect of myofascial release of the calf in PHP and found a clear difference between groups with the myofascial release group performing much better compared to the control sham ultrasound group (Figure 19).
This treatment approach is also supported by two other studies performed by Renan-Ordine et al <ref name=":9">Renan-Ordine R, Alburquerque-SendÍn F, Rodrigues De Souza DP, Cleland JA, Fernández-De-Las-Penas C. [https://www.jospt.org/doi/pdf/10.2519/jospt.2011.3504 Effectiveness of myofascial trigger point manual therapy combined with a self-stretching protocol for the management of plantar heel pain: a randomized controlled trial]. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2011 Feb;41(2):43-50.    </ref> (Figure 18) and Ajimsha et al <ref name=":10">Ajimsha MS, Chithra S, Thulasyammal RP. [https://www.archives-pmr.org/action/showPdf?pii=S0003-9993%2811%2900914-2 Effectiveness of myofascial release in the management of lateral epicondylitis in computer professionals]. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2012 Apr 1;93(4):604-9.    </ref> (Figure 19). Renan-Ordine et al <ref name=":9" />suggested myofascial trigger point therapy of the calf for PHP but the results of the study are not that clear and the clinical effect is unknown (Figure 18). Amjisha et al <ref name=":10" /> investigated the effect of myofascial release of the calf in PHP and found a clear difference between groups with the myofascial release group performing much better compared to the control sham ultrasound group (Figure 19).


Figure 18. Results of the study by Renan-Ordine et al (2011) (Saban 2021)
Figure 18. Results of the study by Renan-Ordine et al <ref name=":9" /><ref name=":4" />


Figure 19. Results of the study by Ajimsha et al (2014) (Saban 2021)
Figure 19. Results of the study by Ajimsha et al <ref name=":10" /><ref name=":4" />


== Conclusion ==
== Conclusion ==
This new protocol for the assessment and treatment of PHP is showing promising results for the management of PHPS (Saban 2014, Renan 2011, Ajimsha 2014, Pollock 2017). The next lecture in this series will investigate the anatomical features behind this protocol followed by details on how to apply this technique and manage a treatment session with a patient.  
This new protocol for the assessment and treatment of PHP is showing promising results for the management of PHPS <ref name=":6" /><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10" /><ref>Pollack Y, Shashua A, Kalichman L. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0958259217300147 Manual therapy for plantar heel pain]. The Foot. 2018 Mar 1;34:11-6. </ref>. The next lecture in this series will investigate the anatomical features behind this protocol followed by details on how to apply this technique and manage a treatment session with a patient.  
 
== Resources  ==
*bulleted list
*x
or
 
#numbered list
#x


== References  ==
== References  ==


<references />
<references />

Revision as of 16:54, 11 August 2021

Original Editor - Merinda Rodseth based on the course by Bernice Saban


Top Contributors - Merinda Rodseth, Jess Bell, Kim Jackson and Rucha Gadgil  

Introduction[edit | edit source]

The previous literature reviews on the risk factors, assessment tools and treatment options for plantar heel pain (PHP) identified a lack of support for any of the commonly used assessment and treatment options for PHP [1][2][3][4]. This highlighted the need for appropriate assessment and treatment tools to assess and manage PHP which led to the development of a new tool for PHP[5]. This protocol involves:

  • an assessment tool
  • manual therapy and
  • exercises

A comprehensive physical examination is essential for the effective diagnosis and management of plantar heel pain syndrome (PHPS) and effective assessment tools are required.

Assessment Tools for Plantar Heel Pain[edit | edit source]

Assessment tools have over time become more sophisticated and technologically advanced but even these advancements did not aid in the effective assessment of PHP. Historically, physical examination tests have been an essential part of clinical assessments as they are more

  • readily available
  • less expensive

than diagnostic imaging methods [6].

In pursuit of accurately assessing PHPS, two tests were found to reproduce the heel pain experienced by an individual with PHPS during a regular foot and ankle evaluation, namely the (Figure 1) [5]

  • Single leg heel raise
  • Single leg mini squat (half squat)


Figure 1. Two clinical tests reproducing PHP

This raised the question of why these tests would provoke pain in the heel (Figure 2) [5]. Considering that PHPS is associated with weight-bearing, could the reproduction of the pain be attributed to an increase in weight-bearing? Yet, looking at the motions, the weight is shifted from the heel to the forefoot which means reduced weight-bearing on the heel. If not because of increased weight-bearing, could these tests then be causing an increase in stress in the plantar fascia? But once again if analysing the motions during the test, during the:

  • Single leg heel raise, the increased extension of the toes might increase tension in the facia, but plantar flexion at the heel again reduces the tension
  • Single leg mini squat, dorsiflexion of the ankle will increase fascial tension which is again reduced by flexion of the knee [5].

If there is then an increase in fascial tension, it will be minimal considering how movements cancel each other out.

Figure 2. Proposed reasons for the pain provocation in the heel

Following these findings, Saban & Masharawi [4] investigated if these tests were able to reproduce heel pain in a larger population, and conducted a clinical trial involving 40 patients with a typical presentation of PHP (Figure 3) [5].

Figure 3. Inclusion criteria for participants in the trial assessing the reliability of three clinical tests for assessing PHP [4][5]

Three tests were included in the study - the single-leg static stance test, single-leg half squat and the single-leg heel raise with test measures as described in Figure 4 [4][5].


Figure 4. Description of the clinical tests used [4][5]. P1 refers to the appearance of pain.

The measures used to assess the tests included (Figure 5):[4][5]

  • the appearance of the first painful sensation (P1) assessed with the visual analogue scale (VAS) and including the level of achievement of the performance (repetitions/seconds)
  • The functional status of the patient, measured using a computerised version of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS)


Figure 5. Outcome measures utilised [4][5]

The aims of this study were to investigate whether

  • these tests were reliable and valid in patients with PHPS
  • Combining the three tests would enhance the possibility of a positive test response from each patient [4][5]


The procedure of the study involved an interview and completion of the functional status questionnaire by the patient, followed by an assessment of the patient by Rater 1 using the three clinical tests and a re-assessment of the same tests 30 minutes later by Rater 2 as a measurement of the interrater reliability of the tests. The patient was reassessed by Rater 1 one week later in order to establish the intrarater reliability of the clinical tests (Figure 6) [4].

Figure 6. The procedure of the clinical trial [4][5]

Moderate to high levels of interrater and intrarater reliability were reported for all the tests and a correlation was reported between the level of pain (VAS) and the functional scale (LEFS) (Figure 7) [4].

Figure 7. Reliability indices for the clinical tests [4][5]

The results of the frequency of a positive pain response for each individual test as well as a combination of the tests can be found in Figure 8 [4][5].

Figure 8. Frequency of a positive pain response for the clinical tests

It is important to also mention that some of the patients only experienced pain towards the end of the testing protocol, which indicates that many repetitions might be needed in order to reproduce the patient’s pain.

In conclusion on the assessment tools, the study by Saban & Masharawi [4] indicates the existence of simple, relevant and reliable clinical tests to use for patients with PHPS that are performance-based, easily applied and appropriate for the assessment of PHPS.

Considering the presence of pain in the heel with PHPS, the source of pain has often been assumed to be at the level of the heel, which is a prime example of the thought distortions described by Daniel Kahneman when he posed his quiz question (Figure 9) [7]. If one opens the mind and looks further, it becomes clear that the pain experienced in PHPS might not be in the heel after all [5].


Figure 9. Quiz question by Daniel Kahneman [5][7]

Treatment Protocol for PHP[edit | edit source]

Similar to the literature on assessment tools for PHPS, no definite conclusions have been made for the treatment of PHPS due to a lack of high-quality evidence [1][2][3][4][8]. Hence, following the discussion on the assessment of PHP, it is necessary to raise the question of how then to progress to the treatment thereof. If the provocation of the heel pain is not from an increase in weight-bearing or fascial stress, could it then be due to a contraction of the calf muscle considering that the

  • heel raise test incorporates concentric contraction of the calve muscles and the
  • half-squat test involves eccentric contraction of the calve muscles?


Manual palpation of the plantar flexor muscles in the posterior calf on the affected leg in patients with PHPS revealed stiff, incompliant and painful soft tissue [9]. Following the lack of evidence for the effective treatment of PHPS, a treatment protocol directed at the posterior calf muscles was proposed by Saban et al [9]. The aim of their study was to compare deep soft tissue massage to the posterior calf with muscles to a more common treatment approach directed to the area of the heel (Figure 10) [9].

Figure 10. Aim of the study by Saban et al [9]

In their study, participants were divided into a study and a control group with the control group receiving a stretching protocol and ultrasound with commonly used settings, and the study group receiving the same stretching protocol but combined with deep tissue massage of the posterior calf muscles and a neural stretch (Figure 11) [9].

Figure 11. Study protocol of the study by Saban et al [9]

The outcome measures used in the study included a functional status questionnaire (computerised version of LEFS) as the primary outcome and the level of first-step pain in the morning (VAS) as a secondary measure [9]. A visual representation of the flow of patients through the study can be found in Figure 12 [9].

Figure 12. Flow of patients through the study by Saban et al [9]

The characteristics of the patients at baseline were also compared by groups to look for similarities between groups at baseline. No statistically significant differences were found between groups at baseline and patients displayed similar ages, similar chronicity of the problem and similar scores on the functional scale and VAS scale at intake (Figures 13 and 14) [9].

Figure 11. Study protocol of the study by Saban et al (2014)

The outcome measures used in the study included a functional status questionnaire (computerised version of LEFS) as the primary outcome and the level of first-step pain in the morning (VAS) as a secondary measure (Saban 2014). A visual representation of the flow of patients through the study can be found in Figure 12 (Saban 2014).

Figure 13. Baseline patient characteristics by treatment group [5][9]

Figure 14. Baseline patient characteristics by treatment group [5][9]

Completion rates were similar between groups and also corresponded to those of 2 other studies investigating similar aspects to the study (Figure 15) [9][10][11].

Figure 15. Treatment completion rates [9][10][11]

The results on the primary outcome of the study indicated that even though both groups improved on the functional scale, the deep massage group (DMS) improved by 15 points compared to the 6 point improvement in the Ultrasound/control (USS) group (Figure 16) [9]. Wang et al [12] indicated that a change of 8 points is needed for any change to be clinically significant and therefore, even though the USS improved statistically, there was no real clinical change whereas the DMS improved both statistically and clinically (Figure 16) [9].

Figure 16. Results of the functional scale scores [5][9]

The level of first-step pain in the morning (VAS) decreased similarly in both groups with no significant difference (Figure 17) [9]. This could indicate that the complaint of first-step pain in the morning might only be one part of PHPS and that patients have other functional limitations that were picked up by the functional scale score (LEFS) [5].

Figure 17. Results of VAS for first-step pain in the morning [5][9]

In the study by Saban et al [9], deep massage therapy to the posterior calf muscles and neural mobilisation combined with stretching exercises had superior short-term functional scale outcomes compared to ultrasound treatment with stretching exercises. This treatment protocol is easy to use and effective for PHP and could therefore be recommended for individuals with PHPS [5][9].

There are, however, some limitations to this study, including:[9]

  • No record of daily self-exercise compliance
  • Short-term results only
  • DMS group performed one additional exercise (SLR with Dorsiflexion) thereby introducing an additional variable into the trial


This treatment approach is also supported by two other studies performed by Renan-Ordine et al [13] (Figure 18) and Ajimsha et al [14] (Figure 19). Renan-Ordine et al [13]suggested myofascial trigger point therapy of the calf for PHP but the results of the study are not that clear and the clinical effect is unknown (Figure 18). Amjisha et al [14] investigated the effect of myofascial release of the calf in PHP and found a clear difference between groups with the myofascial release group performing much better compared to the control sham ultrasound group (Figure 19).

Figure 18. Results of the study by Renan-Ordine et al [13][5]

Figure 19. Results of the study by Ajimsha et al [14][5]

Conclusion[edit | edit source]

This new protocol for the assessment and treatment of PHP is showing promising results for the management of PHPS [9][13][14][15]. The next lecture in this series will investigate the anatomical features behind this protocol followed by details on how to apply this technique and manage a treatment session with a patient.

References[edit | edit source]

  1. 1.0 1.1 Morrissey D, Cotchett M, J'Bari AS, Prior T, Griffiths IB, Rathleff MS, Gulle H, Vicenzino B, Barton CJ. Management of plantar heel pain: a best practice guide informed by a systematic review, expert clinical reasoning and patient values. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2021 Mar 30. 
  2. 2.0 2.1 Salvioli S, Guidi M, Marcotulli G. The effectiveness of conservative, non-pharmacological treatment, of plantar heel pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. The Foot. 2017 Dec 1;33:57-67.   
  3. 3.0 3.1 Babatunde OO, Legha A, Littlewood C, Chesterton LS, Thomas MJ, Menz HB, van der Windt D, Roddy E. Comparative effectiveness of treatment options for plantar heel pain: a systematic review with network meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019 Feb 1;53(3):182-94.
  4. 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 Saban B, Masharawi Y. Three single leg standing tests for clinical assessment of chronic plantar heel pain syndrome: static stance, half-squat and heel rise. Physiotherapy. 2017 Jun 1;103(2):237-44. 
  5. 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 Bernice Saban 2021. A New Protocol for Plantar Heel Pain. Physioplus Course. 2021
  6. Schwieterman B, Haas D, Columber K, Knupp D, Cook C. Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination tests of the ankle/foot complex: a systematic review. International journal of sports physical therapy. 2013 Aug;8(4):416.    
  7. 7.0 7.1 Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. 2011.
  8. Rasenberg N, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Bindels PJ, van der Lei J, van Middelkoop M. Incidence, prevalence, and management of plantar heel pain: a retrospective cohort study in Dutch primary care. British Journal of General Practice. 2019 Nov 1;69(688):e801-8.     
  9. 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16 9.17 9.18 9.19 9.20 9.21 9.22 Saban B, Deutscher D, Ziv T. Deep massage to posterior calf muscles in combination with neural mobilization exercises as a treatment for heel pain: a pilot randomized clinical trial. Manual Therapy. 2014 Apr 1;19(2):102-8.   
  10. 10.0 10.1 Bezalel T, Carmeli E, Katz-Leurer M. The effect of a group education programme on pain and function through knowledge acquisition and home-based exercise among patients with knee osteoarthritis: a parallel randomised single-blind clinical trial. Physiotherapy. 2010 Jun 1;96(2):137-43.
  11. 11.0 11.1 Deutscher D, Horn SD, Dickstein R, Hart DL, Smout RJ, Gutvirtz M, Ariel I. Associations between treatment processes, patient characteristics, and outcomes in outpatient physical therapy practice. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2009 Aug 1;90(8):1349-63.
  12. Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Clinical interpretation of a lower-extremity functional scale–derived computerized adaptive test. Physical therapy. 2009 Sep 1;89(9):957-68.
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 Renan-Ordine R, Alburquerque-SendÍn F, Rodrigues De Souza DP, Cleland JA, Fernández-De-Las-Penas C. Effectiveness of myofascial trigger point manual therapy combined with a self-stretching protocol for the management of plantar heel pain: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2011 Feb;41(2):43-50.   
  14. 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 Ajimsha MS, Chithra S, Thulasyammal RP. Effectiveness of myofascial release in the management of lateral epicondylitis in computer professionals. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2012 Apr 1;93(4):604-9.   
  15. Pollack Y, Shashua A, Kalichman L. Manual therapy for plantar heel pain. The Foot. 2018 Mar 1;34:11-6.