ArticlePain research & management2026
Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Tibial Nerve Block Combined With Shock Wave in the Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Pain research & management, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided tibial nerve block (TNB) with extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) versus ESWT alone or ESWT with fascial injection (FI) in plantar fasciitis (PF) of various courses.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study enrolled 209 PF patients (101 acute, 108 chronic), categorized into three groups: ESWT alone (Group A), ESWT-FI (Group B), and ESWT-TNB (Group C). Pain intensity and foot function were assessed via visual analogue scale (VAS) and American Orthopaedic Foot-Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores at baseline and 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Subgroup analysis was performed stratified by calcaneal spur size. Multiple linear regression was applied to identify independent predictors of pain relief, and subgroup analysis stratified by calcaneal spur size was further performed to characterize treatment response across spur-length strata.
resultsFor acute PF, Groups B/C yielded lower 1-month VAS vs A (mean difference = 1.094, 95% CI 0.759-1.429, p < 0.001; mean difference = 1.414, 95% CI 1.088-1.739, p < 0.001), with no intergroup differences at 6 months (all p > 0.05). In chronic PF, Groups B/C maintained superior VAS/AOFAS improvements at all timepoints; and Group C showed the largest 1-month VAS reduction vs A (mean difference = 2.998, 95% CI 2.662-3.333, p < 0.001). Regression identified calcaneal spur length as an independent negative predictor of pain relief (standardized β = -0.166, 95%CI -0.090-0.031, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed Group C optimal for spurs < 2.5 mm, comparable efficacy of B/C for 2.5-5 mm spurs, and superior ΔVAS in Group B for spurs > 5 mm. Only two transient heel numbness and five transient post-ESWT pain flares occurred, without severe adverse events.
conclusionFor chronic PF, ESWT combined with interventional therapy (especially TNB) provides greater clinical benefit. Heel spur length can serve as a predictor to guide individualized combination therapy (fascial injection or nerve block).
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.