Author Names
Heni Ishwarlal Tandel, Yagna Unmesh Shukla
Reviewer Name
Abby Fortenberry, SPT
Reviewer Affiliation(s)
Duke University SPT
Paper Abstract
Background: Plantar fasciitis is a common cause of pain in the heel which occurs as a result of inflammation of the plantar aponeurosis at its attachment on the calcaneal tuberosity. Myofascial Release Technique is intended to improve the mobility of soft tissue through application of a slow, controlled mechanical stress directly into a restriction. Pressure is gradually increased or repeated until the mobility of the tissue is felt to improve. Purpose: The purpose is to study the scientific evidences regarding the effect of the myofascial release technique in plantar fasciitis. Methodology: A search for relevant articles was carried out using key words- plantar fasciitis, myofascial release technique, pain and functions and search engines- Google Scholar, PubMed, PEDro, ScienceDirect, ResearchGate and CINAHL. Studies were selected from year 2010-2019. Ten studies were included in which there were 7 RCT, 1 Prospective experimental study, 1 Quasi Experimental study and 1 Prepost interventional study. Results: 10 studies were reviewed from which 7 studies concluded that MFR is more effective than a control group receiving sham treatment or conventional treatment and 3 studies highlighted MFR to be equally effective to alternative treatments. Conclusion: Based on the analysis of these 10 articles, it can be concluded that MFR is an effective treatment regimen in individuals with Plantar Fasciitis. Clinical Implication: MFR is found to be effective in reducing pain and improving functions in individuals with plantar fasciitis, therefore MFR technique can be considered as an adjunctive treatment in plantar fasciitis.
NIH Risk of Bias Tool
Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
- Is the review based on a focused question that is adequately formulated and described?
- Yes
- Were eligibility criteria for included and excluded studies predefined and specified?
- Yes
- Did the literature search strategy use a comprehensive, systematic approach?
- Yes
- Were titles, abstracts, and full-text articles dually and independently reviewed for inclusion and exclusion to minimize bias?
- Yes
- Was the quality of each included study rated independently by two or more reviewers using a standard method to appraise its internal validity?
- Cannot Determine, Not Reported, Not Applicable
- Were the included studies listed along with important characteristics and results of each study?
- Yes
- Was publication bias assessed?
- Cannot Determine, Not Reported, Not Applicable
- Was heterogeneity assessed? (This question applies only to meta-analyses.)
- Cannot Determine, Not Reported, Not Applicable
Key Finding #1
7 studies found that myofascial release (MFR) was more effective than conventional treatment or a “sham” control group treatment.
Key Finding #2
3 studies found that MFR was just as effective to other alternative treatments such as iontophoresis, PRT, or MET.
Key Finding #3
Based on the found effectiveness in the studies, MFR can be used as a complementary treatment for plantar fasciitis.
Key Finding #4
MFR provides an analgesic effect using the afferent and effect pathways that promote pain modulation and suppression in the spinal cord.
Please provide your summary of the paper
This article conducted a systems review of several studies that discuss the effectiveness of myofascial release (MFR) as an adjunctive treatment for plantar fasciitis (PF). Overall, the study included 10 articles after assessing eligibility criteria of 189 articles from the last 10 years. Some of the studies mentioned mixed results regarding MFR’s qulity, but other studies found that MFR is an effective treatment for reducing pain and improving function. However, it was noted that the exact method of MFR was unclear, but the use of MFR was attributed to either decreasing risk factors for PF, such as tightness in the gastroc, or decreasing tension in the plantar fascia. Overall, of the articles selected for this study, it was found that MFR can be used to reduce pain and increase function for people with PF.
Please provide your clinical interpretation of this paper. Include how this study may impact clinical practice and how the results can be implemented.
This was a relatively brief systems review of articles published within the past 10 years (2010-2019) that addressed MFR as a treatment for PF. While the results yielded that MFR was an effective treatment, the study only included 10 out of 189 articles. Therefore, I think more systems reviews that include a larger number of studies are needed to further explore mechanisms of MFR. In addition, the study had unclear specifics about the technique each of the articles used for MFR. I think it would prove beneficial to include more details about the MFR technique, and the severity of the PF that each person was experiencing in each study.
