الفهرس 
Introduction
CalcaneusOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 99 |  |  |
| | | from | 99 | | |
Abstract
Chronic plantar fasciitis (PF) is the most common cause of foot complaints making up 11–15% of the foot symptoms requiring professional care among adults. [1]Also, it is a common problem that affects sport participants as well as inactive middle-aged individuals. [2]
There is a debate in literature regarding pathophysiology of plantar fasciitis. It is widely believed that plantar fasciitis results from repeated micro-trauma due to overuse, which results in micro-tears of the tissue substance until a macro injury occurs and not an inflammatory process [3]
Patients; typically compliant of pain that; starts with the first step on arising in the morning or after prolonged sitting. Pain onset is usually insidious. Location of pain is vital to diagnosis. Patients required extracting full details of the site or sites of pain in the foot by getting the patient to map out with the finger exactly where the pain is felt which is usually at medial calcaneal tubercle. [38]
The purpose of this study was to compare between the effect of PRP [group (A)] and steroid [group (B)] in chronic plantar fasciitis the results were assessed by comparing American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Scale (AOFAS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) before injection and 2months & 6 months after injection in both groups.
In our study there is 40 patients (42 feet) , 20 patients (22 feet) in group (A) there is significant change in VAS from 7.3+0.8 before injection to 3.15+0.99 in first follow up visit (2months after injection) and to 1.65+0.88 in second follow up visit (6months after injection) & significant change in AOFAS from 72.15+11.24 before injection to 85+5.13 in first follow up visit (2months after injection) and to 92+5.23 in second follow up visit (6months after injection) , 20 patients (20 feet) in group (B) there is significant change in VAS from 7.45+1.05 before injection to 2.9+1.17 in first follow up visit (2months after injection) and to 1.45+1.19 in second follow up visit (6months after injection) & significant change in AOFAS from 72.1+10.88 before injection to 85.4+6.16 in first follow up visit (2months after injection) and to 92+5.23 in second follow up visit (6months after injection) .
Both methods were effective and successful in treating plantar fasciitis. Although there is no complication related to steroids are observed, when the potential risks of corticosteroid such as fat pad atrophy, osteomyelitis of the calcaneus, and iatrogenic rupture of the plantar fascia are taken into consideration, PRP injection seems to be safer while being just as effective in the treatment of plantar fasciitis.