Purpose: To assess and compare the effect of aquatic and conventional physical therapy, two well-known non-operative therapeutic options in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods: 50 patients with low back pain and the diagnosis of LSS were recruited in this prospective parallel randomized controlled trial. Patients in group one were enrolled in aquatic therapy program and those in group two attended physical therapy sessions through application of physical modalities and receiving a home-based exercise program. Pain and walking ability were measured in each group before therapy, immediately after therapy and three months later. Results: Patients in both groups improved regarding pain either assessed immediately after therapy (repeated measure test, p < 0.001) or three months later (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.001 for group one and p = 0.005 for group two). Functioning improved in both groups (repeated measure test, p < 0.001) but this advantage did not remain significant after three months follow up in group two (repeated measure test, p = 0.002 in group one and p = 0.181 in group two). Patients in group one had significantly more favorable outcome than group two regarding functioning (independent samples t-test, p = 0.02) and pain (Mann–Whitney test, p = 0.001); however, this superiority didn't sustain in long term follow up. Conclusion: Aquatic therapy can provide greater short term improvement in pain and functioning than conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS especially those with limited capability for exercise on land.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Plantar fasciitis (PF) is one of the common reasons of heel pain that making up 11%-15% professional managements for the foot symptoms among adults. Objectives: The current study aimed to compare the effect of ultrasound-guided (US-guided) injection of platelets rich plasma (PRP) with that of corticosteroid injection to treat patients with chronic PF. Methods: Patients with PF (n = 30) were assigned to receive either PRP or corticosteroid US-guided injection. The pain level was evaluated by the visual analogue scale (VAS) the baseline, three and eight weeks after injection. Disabilities were assessed by foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM) at the baseline, three and eight weeks after injection. Results: In both corticosteroid and PRP injected groups, the average VAS heel pain scores and the mean FAAM subscales scores were statistically lower compared with the pre-treatment scores (P < 0.001). The improving symptoms in the corticosteroid group at the beginning (after three weeks) were better and then decreased after eight weeks, but the differences were not significant; while in the PRP group symptoms progressively improved. Conclusions: The current study results revealed that both methods were effective and successful to treat PF, but due to potential complication of corticosteroid and its short-term relief of pain, PRP injection looked safer.