Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Dextrose Prolotherapy for the Treatment of Chronic Recalcitrant Plantar Fasciitis

• Published in: PM & R Vol. 6; no. 2; pp. 152 - 158
• Main Authors: Kim, Eunkuk, MD, PhD, Lee, Jong Ha, MD, PhD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.02.2014
• Subjects: Adult; Anesthetics, Local - therapeutic use; Chronic Disease; Disability Evaluation; Fasciitis, Plantar - diagnostic imaging; Fasciitis, Plantar - drug therapy; Female; Glucose - therapeutic use; Humans; Injections; Lidocaine - therapeutic use; Male; Middle Aged; Mobility Limitation; Pain Measurement; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Single-Blind Method; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography, Interventional
• ISSN: 1934-1482; 1934-1563
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.07.003

Objective To determine the efficacy of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) compared with dextrose prolotherapy (DP) in patients with chronic recalcitrant plantar fasciitis (PF) Design A single-blinded, randomized, controlled study. Setting Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation of a university hospital. Participants Twenty-one patients with a clinical diagnosis of chronic PF confirmed by diagnostic ultrasound (plantar fascia thickness >4 mm) were randomly assigned to the PRP group (n = 10) or the DP group (n = 11). Interventions Each patient received 2 injections into the plantar fascia through a peppering technique under ultrasound guidance at an interval of 2 weeks, either with 2 mL of autologous PRP or 2 mL of 15% dextrose/lidocaine solution. Main Outcome Measurements The outcome measures included the pain, disability, and activity limitation subscales, measured by means of the Foot Functional Index. Data were collected before the first injection, at 2 weeks (before the second injection), and at the 2- and 6-month follow-ups. Results All patients completed the follow-ups, with the exception of 1 patient in the PRP group. The mean Foot Functional Index total and subcategory score improvements were greater in the PRP group compared with the DP group (improvement with PRP vs DP, total: 30.4% vs 15.1%, pain: 29.7% vs 17.1%, disability: 26.6% vs 14.5%, activity limitation: 28.0% vs 12.4%). However, no statistically significant difference was noted at any follow-up. In the pain and disability subcategories, both groups showed significant improvements at the last re-evaluation. The PRP group also showed significant improvements in the disability and activity limitation subscales at the second re-evaluation. Conclusions Each treatment seems to be effective for chronic recalcitrant PF, expanding the treatment options for patients in whom conservative care has failed. PRP treatment also may lead to a better initial improvement in function compared with DP treatment.