SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Endoscopic plantar fasciotomy versus open plantar fasciotomy for treatment of plantar fasciitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlantar fasciitis is a degenerative pathology that most common causing heel pain in adults aged 40-60. Severe pain typically presents at morning or after prolonged activity. Treatment includes conservative measures, physical therapy, orthotics, and injections. Surgical intervention is considered for severe cases requiring prolonged treatment.
objectivesThe primary objective is to compare functional outcomes between open and endoscopic plantar fasciotomy, while the secondary objective is to compare their respective complication rates. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive search of the English-language literature was conducted using multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus and Google Scholar in addition to a manual search. Studies regrading endoscopic plantar fasciotomy (EPF) and open plantar fasciotomy (OPF) were included in the meta-analysis. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the appropriate tool. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings. The analysis focused on outcomes such as pain relief (VAS scores), functional improvement (AOFAS scores), complications and operative time. A total of 19 articles met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis.
resultsThis meta-analysis of 19 studies and 646 patients showed that both OPF and EPF resulted in excellent improvements in AOFAS and VAS scores. Comparative studies revealed a non-significant difference between the two groups, with Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) for VAS score {1.36 (95% CI (- 4.03, 6), p-value = 0.390} and {- 0.39 (95% CI (- 5.41, 4.63), p-value = 0.770} for AFOS score. Consistently and significantly shorter mean operative time for EPF (15.76 min) compared to OPF (36.78 min). EPF demonstrated a lower complication rate 5% (95% CI: 2%, 9%). Compared with OPF 11% (95% CI: 2%, 45%). However non-comparative studies demonstrated OPF slightly more pain relief (VAS score) and functional improvement (AOFAS score).
conclusionThis study showed that both EPF and EPF appear to be effective treatments. EPF was associated with shorter operative times and a lower complication rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.