Preferred Management of Recalcitrant Plantar Fasciitis Among Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are a number of different treatment options available for recalcitrant plantar fasciitis, with limited high-level evidence to guide nonoperative and operative treatment methods. The purpose of this study was to determine the current preferred nonoperative and operative treatment methods for recalcitrant plantar fasciitis by a group of experienced orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons. METHODS: A hypothetical patient with recalcitrant plantar fasciitis was developed as the basis for a survey comprised of seven questions. The questions related to the surgeon's preferred treatment after 4~months of failed nonoperative management and then after 10 months of recalcitrant symptoms. The survey was sent to committee members of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS). RESULTS: Eighty-four orthopaedic surgeons completed the survey (84 out of 116; response rate=72%). At the 4-month visit, when questioned regarding their most preferred next step in management, 37 (44%) respondents favored initiation of plantar fascia-specific stretching (PFSS), 20 (24%) supervised physical therapy, 17 (20%) night splinting, five (6%) steroid injection, three (4%) custom orthotics, and two (2%) cast or boot immobilization. With ongoing symptoms at 10~months, 62 (74%) respondents chose surgery or ECSWT (extracorporeal shock wave therapy) as their next step in management. Some form of surgery (alone or in combination) was chosen by 46 (55%) respondents. The most popular operative interventions were gastrocnemius recession (alone or in combination with another procedure) and open partial plantar fascia release with nerve decompression. CONCLUSIONS: For shorter duration symptoms, tissue-specific stretching and conditioning methods were favored over anti-inflammatory or structural support modalities which is consistent with available high-level evidence studies. Heterogeneity of operative preferences for chronic symptoms highlighted the need for further high-quality studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".