La Trobe
- No file added yet -

Efficacy of heel lifts for lower limb musculoskeletal conditions: A systematic review

Download (3.02 MB)
Version 2 2024-07-11, 06:19
Version 1 2024-07-03, 07:57
journal contribution
posted on 2024-07-11, 06:19 authored by Jaryd BourkeJaryd Bourke, Shannon MunteanuShannon Munteanu, E Merza, A Garofolini, S Taylor, P Malliaras
Introduction: The objective of this systematic review is to determine the benefits and harms of heel lifts to any comparator for lower limb musculoskeletal conditions. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid AMED, Ovid EMCARE, CINAHL Plus and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to the end of May 2024. Randomised, quasi-randomised or non-randomised trials comparing heel lifts to any other intervention or no-treatment were eligible for inclusion. Data was extracted for the outcomes of pain, disability/function, participation, participant rating of overall condition, quality of life, composite measures and adverse events. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach at the primary time point 12 weeks (or next closest). Results: Eight trials (n = 903), investigating mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy, calcaneal apophysitis and plantar heel pain were included. Heel lifts were compared to exercise, ultrasound, cryotherapy orthotics, stretching, footwear, activity modification, felt pads and analgesic medication. No outcome was at low risk of bias and few effects (2 out of 47) were clinically important. Low-certainty evidence (1 trial, n = 199) indicates improved pain relief (55.7 points [95% CI: 50.3–61.1], on a 100 mm visual analogue scale) with custom orthotics compared to heel lifts at 12 weeks for calcaneal apophysitis. Very low-certainty evidence (1 trial, n = 62) indicates improved pain and function with heel lifts over indomethacin (35.5 points [95% CI: 21.1–49.9], Foot Function Index) at 12 months for plantar heel pain. Conclusions: Few trials have assessed the benefits and harms of heel lifts for lower limb musculoskeletal conditions. Only two outcomes out of 47 showed clinically meaningful between group differences. However, due to very low to low certainty evidence we are unable to be confident in the results and the true effect may be substantially different. Registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42022309644.

History

Publication Date

2024-06-01

Journal

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

Volume

17

Issue

2

Article Number

e12031

Pagination

14p.

Publisher

Wiley

ISSN

1460-7328

Rights Statement

© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Foot and Ankle Research published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Podiatry Association and The Royal College of Podiatry. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.