| Literature DB >> 35620204 |
Silai Zhu1, Yuli Niu1, Jing Wang1, Dan Xu1, Yong Li1.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the effect of artificial intelligence (AI) technology combined with ultrasound-guided needle knife intervention in the treatment of plantar fasciitis (PF) on pain, fascia thickness, and ankle and foot function.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35620204 PMCID: PMC9129964 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3021320
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Figure 1Measurement of plantar fascia thickness at about 0.5 cm from the junction of plantar fascia and calcaneus.
Figure 2Plantar fascia elasticity score: using the booster mode, the quality control index is 60-80. The left side shows the B-mode ultrasound image, and the right side shows the elastic image. (a) The blue area contains most of the display of the plantar fascia; (b) the green area contains the display of most of the plantar fascia; (c) the area of the plantar fascia is shown in addition to blue or green.
Figure 3Plantar fascia blood flow index: measure the area of the blood flow signal at the plantar fascia in the figure and then divide it by 1 square centimeter to get the percentage of the blood flow signal in the area.
Comparison of nursing satisfaction (n/%).
| Group |
| Cure | Significant effect | Effective | Invalid | Total efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C group | 65 | 45 (69.23) | 8 (12.31) | 7 (10.77) | 5 (7.69) | 60 (92.31) |
| R group | 65 | 53 (81.54) | 11 (16.92) | 1 (1.54) | 0 | 65 (98.46) |
|
| 5.200 | |||||
|
| 0.022 |
Comparison of VAS scores between the two groups (, points).
| Group |
| Before treatment | 2 weeks after treatment | 4 weeks after treatment | 8 weeks after treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C group | 65 | 7.48 ± 0.24 | 5.63 ± 0.53 | 3.86 ± 1.23 | 2.84 ± 0.64 |
| R group | 65 | 7.41 ± 0.44 | 4.66 ± 1.34 | 2.46 ± 0.31 | 1.22 ± 0.12 |
|
| 1.126 | 5.427 | 8.898 | 20.058 | |
|
| 0.262 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Comparison of plantar fascia thickness (, mm).
| Group |
| Before treatment | 2 weeks after treatment | 4 weeks after treatment | 8 weeks after treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C group | 65 | 5.38 ± 0.56 | 5.04 ± 0.53 | 4.81 ± 0.32 | 4.10 ± 0.35 |
| R group | 65 | 5.31 ± 0.52 | 4.81 ± 0.42 | 4.03 ± 0.53 | 3.56 ± 0.56 |
|
| 0.738 | 2.742 | 10.157 | 6.592 | |
|
| 0.461 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Comparison of plantar fascia elasticity scores between the two groups (, points).
| Group |
| Before treatment | 2 weeks after treatment | 4 weeks after treatment | 8 weeks after treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C group | 65 | 2.79 ± 0.76 | 2.69 ± 0.33 | 2.23 ± 0.36 | 1.38 ± 0.45 |
| R group | 65 | 2.71 ± 0.57 | 2.21 ± 0.21 | 1.36 ± 0.31 | 1.16 ± 0.21 |
|
| 0.678 | 9.893 | 14.764 | 3.571 | |
|
| 0.498 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Comparison of plantar fascia blood flow index between the two groups ().
| Group |
| Before treatment | 2 weeks after treatment | 4 weeks after treatment | 8 weeks after treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C group | 65 | 3.58 ± 0.44 | 4.58 ± 0.63 | 4.59 ± 0.46 | 4.53 ± 0.75 |
| R group | 65 | 3.51 ± 0.38 | 5.53 ± 0.42 | 5.06 ± 0.52 | 5.05 ± 0.72 |
|
| 0.970 | 10.115 | 5.457 | 4.032 | |
|
| 0.333 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Comparison of AOFAS scores between the two groups (, points).
| Group | N | Before treatment | 2 weeks after treatment | 4 weeks after treatment | 8 weeks after treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C group | 65 | 60.48 ± 5.23 | 66.79 ± 3.42 | 74.67 ± 4.42 | 83.93 ± 3.33 |
| R group | 65 | 60.49 ± 5.22 | 70.48 ± 3.31 | 80.83 ± 4.21 | 87.83 ± 4.31 |
|
| 0.010 | 6.250 | 8.136 | 5.772 | |
|
| 0.991 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |