<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-10-18T23:56:43Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net:ebyu/12364" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net:ebyu/12364</identifier><datestamp>2026-10-18T21:14:17Z</datestamp><setSpec>openaire</setSpec><setSpec>driver</setSpec><setSpec>com_ebyu_10000</setSpec><setSpec>col_ebyu_10001</setSpec></header><metadata><oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd"><dc:title>Which Treatment Method Is Better in the Treatment of Chronic Plantar Fasciitis: Corticosteroid Injection, Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy, or Radiofrequency Thermal Lesioning?</dc:title><dc:creator>Yapici, Furkan</dc:creator><dc:creator>Gur, Volkan</dc:creator><dc:creator>Sari, Ilker Fatih</dc:creator><dc:creator>Karakose, Resit</dc:creator><dc:creator>Tardus, Ismail</dc:creator><dc:creator>Ucpunar, Hanifi</dc:creator><dc:description>Background: Chronic plantar fasciitis (CPF) is a common disease that has various treatment options. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of three of these options: corticosteroid injection (CSI), extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), and radiofrequency thermal lesioning (RTL). Methods: The records of 229 patients treated with CSI (n = 81), ESWT (n = 76), or RTL (n = 72) were retrospectively analyzed. Visual analog scale scores, patient satisfaction– related success rates, repeated treatment rates, and initial treatment change rates were compared. Results: Mean ± SD follow-up was 19.0 ± 4.5 months. Baseline clinical characteristics, mean visual analog scale scores (before treatment and at months 3, 6, and 12), patient satisfaction and success rates (at months 6 and 12), and repeated treatment and initial treatment change rates were similar between treatment groups. No complications were observed after the treatments. Conclusions: All three options—CSI, ESWT, and RTL—were found to be safe and effective in treating CPF, with similar outcomes up to 1 year. Use of CSIs is advantageous because it is more accessible than the other treatments. Similarly, the noninvasive nature of ESWT is glaring among other minimally invasive options. Therefore, the first-line treatment modality of CPF can be CSI or ESWT, depending on the patient’s and physician’s joint preference; RTL treatment should be tried in patients who do not respond to these treatments. © 2023, American Podiatric Medical Association. All rights reserved.</dc:description><dc:publisher>American Podiatric Medical Association</dc:publisher><dc:date>2023</dc:date><dc:type>Article</dc:type><dc:identifier>https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/12364</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>https://doi.org/10.7547/21-049</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>8750-7315</dc:identifier><dc:language>en</dc:language><dc:relation>Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association</dc:relation><dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights><dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type><dc:identifier>https://ebyu-rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/tr/items/ebyu/12364</dc:identifier></oai_dc:dc></metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>