Effect Of Different Pressure On The Air Pressure Ballistic Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy With Heel Pain

Objective To compare different curative effect of different pressure ballisticextracorporeal shock wave therapy with heel pain. To investigate the bestpressure of treating the heel pain.Methods There were60patients who met the inclusion of heel pain, randomlydivided into A、B、C、D four groups,15cases in each group. Four groups wereadopted pneumatic ballistic extracorporeal shock wave treatment. Pressure groupswere set to group A (2.5bar)、group B (3.0bar)、group C (3.5bar)、group D(4.0bar), treatment mode is2000shocks each time, frequency is10Hz, the energyflux density is0.38mJ/mm2, the probe is15mm, interval7days, treated3times intotal. There were no drugs or physical therapy during the treatment. Adoptnumerical rating scale (NRS), Roles and Maudsley score (RM) to assess pain andfunctional recovery. Record the scores of6time-points: T0(before the treatment),T1(after the first treatment), T2(1week after the last treatment), T3(4weeks afterthe last treatment), T4(12weeks after the last treatment), T5(24weeks after thelast treatment) and record the adverse reactions such as skin ecchymosis, swelling,hematoma, pain increased, etc. Record the three-dimensional reconstruction of theCT of symptomatic patients in T0and T5. Compare the image changes (such as theshape, length, angle changes of bone spur). Results1.The pain score of NRS: it showed a fluctuated trend: decreased, increased sligh-tly and dropped again from group A, B, C and D. To be more detailed, the painscore averagely hit the bottom at T1, rose slightly at T4. Therefore, compared T0with T1to T5, there is statistical significance; however, no statistical significance lies in among each NRS pain score in each time period.2.The score of Roles and Maudsley showed unsteady trend, too: went down at fir-st, went up slightly and then dipped again form the function scores of group A, B,C and D. Averagely, the score dropped to nadir at T1, climbed at T2and thendecline. Hence, compared T0with T1to T5, there is statistical significance (p>0.05); however, no statistical significance lies in among each NRS pain score ineach time period (P>0.05).3.Adverse reaction: group C appeared one example of local swelling after shockwave curing. Group D showed one case of local ecchymosis and two cases of sw-elling, without any other complications. Consequently, the difference among theadverse reaction group is not statistically significant.4.There is no graphically noticeable change on the shape, angle and length of cal-caneal bone spur, compared with its counterpart before curing.Conclusion Air pressure ballistic extracorporeal shock wave for heel paintreatment is effective. Different pressure of shock wave in the same energy has noeffect on the treatment result. Non-Focused shock wave can not makesignificantly changes of imaging.