MedTrace Logo

Comparison of Treatment Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy (ESWT) and Myofascial Release Techniques in Patients With Plantar Fasciitis

NCT07204210 · Status: ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 114

Last updated 2025-10-02

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

Various treatment methods are employed for patients diagnosed with plantar fasciitis. However, many of these approaches involve high-cost interventions, such as extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) applications. The present study aims to compare the treatment effectiveness of myofascial release-considered a cost-effective intervention-with ESWT, which is among the most commonly preferred treatment modalities.

Conditions

  • Plantar Fasciitis

Interventions

DEVICE

extracorporeal shockwave therapy

Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) is a treatment using powerful acoustic pulses which is mostly used to treat kidney stones and in physical therapy and orthopedics. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy is used as a second line measure to treat tennis elbow, shoulder rotator cuff pain, Achilles tendinitis, plantar fasciitis, and greater trochanteric pain syndrome. The lithotripter attempts to break up the stone with minimal collateral damage by using an externally applied, focused, high-intensity acoustic pulse. The patient is usually sedated or anesthetized for the procedure in order to help them remain still and reduce possible discomfort.

OTHER

myofascial release technique

Myofascial release (MFR, self-myofascial release) is an alternative medicine therapy claimed to be useful for treating skeletal muscle immobility and pain by relaxing contracted muscles, improving blood and lymphatic circulation and stimulating the stretch reflex in muscles. Writing for Science-Based Medicine, Harriet Hall described myofascial release as an umbrella term for several types of physical manipulation, which might more simply be described as a kind of massage based on vaguely defined scientific notions. Reviews published in 2013 and 2015 evaluating evidence for MFR efficacy found that clinical trials that had been conducted varied in quality, technique, outcome measurements and had mixed outcomes; the 2015 review noted: "it is time for scientific evidences on MFR to support its clinical use.

OTHER

Placebo Control

Participants were not given any interventions that had proven effective for treatment. An appointment was made for 5 weeks later.

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Istanbul Rumeli University

    lead OTHER

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age
18 Years
Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
No

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2025-09-15
Primary Completion
2025-10-27
Completion
2025-12-31

Countries

  • Turkey (Türkiye)

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT07204210 on ClinicalTrials.gov