Evaluation of the Results of Endoscopic Release of Plantar Fascia in Cases of Resistant Chronic Heel Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the results of endoscopic release of plantar fascia in resistant cases of heel pain.METHODS: An experimental descriptive study involved twenty patients who presented to University hospital with resistant chronic plantar heel pain due to plantar fasciitis, were treated with endoscopic plantar fasciotomy. All patients completed a period of at least six months follow up. Data were collected by the modified American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Questionnaire, informed consent was applied, and SPSS was used for data entry and analysis.RESULTS: At the end of follow up the mean modified AOFAS of ankle- hind foot score was improved from 49.10 (ranging from 34 to 56) pre-operatively to 90.25 post operatively (ranging from 67 to 100). Seven patients (35%) had excellent results, ten patients (50%) had good results, two patients had fair results, and one patient (5%) had a poor result. AOFAS score of pain was improved from a mean of 14.0+9.40 points pre-operatively (range 0 – 20) to 31.5 + 6.71 points post-operatively (range 20 – 40). AOFAS score of activity of daily living improved from a mean of 4+0 points pre-operatively to 9.85+0.671post-operatively ranging from 7 to 10 points.CONCLUSION: Endoscopic release of plantar fascia has positive therapeutic effects in cases of resistant chronic heel pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".