What to try for a sore elbow or heel

What to change without giving up movement

For the elbow, loosen your grip and move often-used tools closer. Your arm won't work as hard that way. For the heel, choose supportive shoes and shorten long outings for now.

Too much rest can make the area stiff and weak. Gentle motion keeps the joint moving while the sore tissue settles. A physical therapist or clinician can choose safe strength work if movement brings a sharp ache or new weakness.

When to have the elbow or heel checked

Have the elbow or heel checked when soreness lasts, returns often, or changes your walk or grip. Tell the clinician when it began and what brings relief. Bring any shoes, brace, or exercise notes that show what you've already tried.

A sudden pop near the heel needs prompt care, especially if your foot no longer pushes off. Get help when elbow soreness follows a hard fall or clear injury. Fever, spreading redness, or marked swelling also needs quick care before a routine clinic visit.

What to discuss when the soreness stays

If the soreness stays, QC Kinetix offers regenerative treatments, its term for non-surgical care built from material already in your body. PRP refers to platelet-rich plasma, which staff make on site from blood they draw and separate in a spinning machine. A needle delivers the saved platelet-heavy portion to the elbow or heel named during your exam.

The clinic's medical providers are clinicians who inspect the elbow or heel and then check your health before treatment. They review medicines, goals, and earlier care before saying whether that PRP shot fits. Ask what activity may change afterward, what soreness is expected, and what the quoted price covers.

Sources

1. A 12-centre randomized controlled trial of 230 patients with chronic lateral epicondylar tendinopathy compared tendon needling with leukocyte-enriched PRP against tendon needling alone. At 12 weeks there was no significant difference (55.1% versus 47.4% pain improvement; P=.163). At 24 weeks the PRP group reported 71.5% versus 56.1% pain improvement (P=.019), a 83.9% versus 68.3% success rate (P=.037), and significantly less residual elbow tenderness (29.1% versus 54.0%; P=.009). No significant complications occurred in either group.

   Mishra AK, Skrepnik NV, Edwards SG, et al. — Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma for chronic tennis elbow: a double-blind, prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of 230 patients. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2014. DOI: 10.1177/0363546513494359.

2. A meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials (730 patients) with lateral epicondylitis found corticosteroid better than PRP in the short term (under 2 months) on VAS pain (MD 0.93; 95% CI 0.42-1.44) and DASH (MD 10.23; 95% CI 9.08-11.39), while PRP was better in the long term (6 months or more) on VAS (MD -2.18; 95% CI -3.13 to -1.22), DASH (MD -8.13) and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MD 16.53). The two treatments trade places over time rather than one dominating.

   Xu Y, Li T, Wang L, et al. — Platelet-Rich Plasma Has Better Results for Long-term Functional Improvement and Pain Relief for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2024. DOI: 10.1177/03635465231213087.

3. A meta-analysis of 20 trials (1268 participants) covering elbow epicondylitis and plantar fasciitis found that for epicondylitis PRP gave a statistically and clinically meaningful long-term improvement in pain versus corticosteroid, with a very large effect size of -1.3 (95% CI -1.9 to -0.7), but the evidence level was LOW; there was moderate evidence that corticosteroid gave better short-term (1-3 month) pain relief than PRP.

   Huang K, Giddins G, Wu LD — Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injections in the Management of Elbow Epicondylitis and Plantar Fasciitis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2020. DOI: 10.1177/0363546519888450.

4. A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine randomized trials (239 PRP patients, 240 corticosteroid patients) in chronic plantar fasciitis found statistically significant differences in VAS pain favouring PRP at 1-1.5, 3, 6 and 12 months, and in AOFAS function favouring PRP at 6 and 12 months (no difference at 1 and 3 months).

   Hurley ET, Shimozono Y, Hannon CP, et al. — Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroids for Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 2020. DOI: 10.1177/2325967120915704.

5. A meta-analysis of 15 studies in plantar fasciitis found PRP superior to corticosteroid on AOFAS at 6 and 12 months (P=.009 both) and on VAS at 3, 6 and 12 months, with no advantage in the first month. The authors added the caveat that nine of the fifteen studies had a high risk of bias and that 'different protocols for PRP preparation reduce the internal and external validity of these findings' - the preparation problem stated as an explicit limit on the conclusion.

   Hohmann E, Tetsworth K, Glatt V — Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroids for the Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2021. DOI: 10.1177/0363546520937293.

6. In a randomized comparative trial of chronic severe recalcitrant plantar fasciitis, the corticosteroid group's mean AOFAS score rose from 52 to 81 at three months but fell back to 58 at 12 months and 56 at 24 months, while the PRP group rose from 37 to 95 at three months and held at 92 at 24 months. The pattern - steroid relief that fades, PRP relief that persists - is the clearest single illustration of the durability difference.

   Monto RR — Platelet-rich plasma efficacy versus corticosteroid injection treatment for chronic severe plantar fasciitis. Foot & Ankle International, 2014. DOI: 10.1177/1071100713519778.

7. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis comparing PRP with other modalities for plantar fasciitis found PRP more effective than corticosteroid injection, extracorporeal shockwave therapy and placebo on VAS pain, and better than corticosteroid and placebo on AOFAS - but found no consistent advantage across every outcome measured, and called for a more standardised approach to PRP preparation and outcome measurement.

   Herber A, Covarrubias O, Daher M, et al. — Platelet rich plasma therapy versus other modalities for treatment of plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Foot and Ankle Surgery, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2024.02.004.

8. The devices used to spin PRP at the point of care are cleared by FDA as clinical centrifuges, product code JQC, a Class I device under 21 CFR 862.2050 - for example the Biomet GPS Platelet Separation Kit (K030555, cleared 2003) and the Harvest SmartPrep2 / SmartPrep Platelet Concentration System (K103340, cleared 2010). That clearance covers the equipment that separates blood. It is not an FDA approval of platelet-rich plasma as a treatment for osteoarthritis, tendinopathy or any other orthopedic condition, and copy must never blur the two.

   U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Center for Devices and Radiological Health) — 510(k) Premarket Notification database and Product Classification: JQC, Centrifuges (Micro, Ultra, Refrigerated) For Clinical Use, 21 CFR 862.2050. FDA accessdata (CDRH device databases), 2003.