Treatments for Morton's neuroma
Barry G Matthews,Colin E Thomson,Michael P Harding,John C McKinley,Robert S Ware
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd014687.pub2
IF: 8.4
2024-02-10
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:Morton's neuroma (MN) is a painful neuropathy resulting from a benign enlargement of the common plantar digital nerve that occurs commonly in the third webspace and, less often, in the second webspace of the foot. Symptoms include burning or shooting pain in the webspace that extends to the toes, or the sensation of walking on a pebble. These impact on weight‐bearing activities and quality of life. To assess the benefits and harms of interventions for MN. On 11 July 2022, we searched CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus EBSCOhost, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Embase Ovid, MEDLINE Ovid, and WHO ICTRP. We checked the bibliographies of identified randomised trials and systematic reviews and contacted trial authors as needed. We included all randomised, parallel‐group trials (RCTs) of any intervention compared with placebo, control, or another intervention for MN. We included trials where allocation occurred at the level of the individual or the foot (clustered data). We included trials that confirmed MN through symptoms, a clinical test, and an ultrasound scan (USS) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We assessed bias using Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2) and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. We included six RCTs involving 373 participants with MN. We judged risk of bias as having 'some concerns' across most outcomes. No studies had a low risk of bias across all domains. Post‐intervention time points reported were: three months to less than 12 months from baseline (nonsurgical outcomes), and 12 months or longer from baseline (surgical outcomes). The primary outcome was pain, and secondary outcomes were function, satisfaction or health‐related quality of life (HRQoL), and adverse events (AE). Nonsurgical treatments Corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection (CS+LA) versus local anaesthetic injection (LA) Two RCTs compared CS+LA versus LA. At three to six months: • CS+LA may result in little to no difference in pain (mean difference (MD) ‐6.31 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐14.23 to 1.61; P = 0.12, I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 157 participants; low‐certainty evidence). (Assessed via a pain visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 100 mm); a lower score indicated less pain.) • CS+LA may result in little to no difference in function when compared with LA (standardised mean difference (SMD) ‐0.30, 95% CI ‐0.61 to 0.02; P = 0.06, I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 157 participants; low‐certainty evidence). (Function was measured using: the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Lesser Toe Metatarsophalangeal‐lnterphalangeal Scale (AOFAS; 0 to 100 points) ‐ we transformed the scale so that a lower score indicated improved function ‐ and the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Schedule (MFPDS; 0 to 100 points), where a lower score indicated improved function.) • CS+LA probably results in little to no difference in HRQoL when compared to LA (MD 0.07, 95% CI ‐0.03 to 0.17; P = 0.19; 1 study, 122 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), and CS+LA may not increase satisfaction (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.85; P = 0.78; 1 study, 35 participants; low‐certainty evidence). (Assessed using the EuroQol five dimension instrument (EQ‐5D; 0‐1 point); a higher score indicated improved HRQoL.) • The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of CS+LA on AE when compared with LA (RR 9.84, 95% CI 1.28 to 75.56; P = 0.03, I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 157 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Adverse events for CS+LA included mild skin atrophy (3.9%), hypopigmentation of the skin (3.9%) and plantar fat pad atrophy (2.6%); no adverse events were observed with LA. Ultrasound‐guided (UG) CS+LA versus non‐ultrasound‐guided (NUG) CS+LA Two RCTs compared UG CS+LA versus NUG CS+LA. At six months: • UG CS+LA probably reduces pain when compared with NUG CS+LA (MD ‐15.01 mm, 95% CI ‐27.88 to ‐2.14; P = 0.02, I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 116 feet; moderate‐certainty evidence). (Assessed with a pain VAS.) • UG CS+LA probably increases function when compared with NUG CS+LA (SMD ‐0.47, 95% CI ‐0.84 to ‐0.10; P = 0.01, I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 116 feet; moderate‐certainty evidence). We do not know of any established minimum clinical important difference (MCID) for the scales that assessed function, specifically, the MFPDS and the Manchester‐Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ; 0 to 100 points; a lower score indicated improved function.) • UG CS+LA may increase satisfaction compared with NUG CS+LA (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.44; P = 0.003, I 2 = 15%; 2 studies, 114 feet; low‐certainty evidence). • HRQoL was not measured. • UG CS+LA may result in little to no difference in AE when compared with NUG CS+LA (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.39; P = 0.15, I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 116 feet; low‐ce -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal