Comparison of Calcaneal Subchondral Injection of Calcium Phosphate and Plantar Fasciotomy vs Plantar Fasciotomy Alone for Refractory Infracalcaneal Heel Pain

Background: Treatment of chronic refractory heel pain has evolved to consider calcaneal structural fatigue as a component of the symptom profile. While concomitant calcium phosphate injection has become a method of addressing the accompanying calcaneal bone marrow edema (BME) frequently seen in this population, there is no literature supporting its use compared to traditional fasciotomy. Methods: Consecutive patients with symptoms of refractory infracalcaneal heel pain and calcaneal BME were treated in our practice by either surgical fasciotomy (n = 33) or fasciotomy plus calcium phosphate injection (n = 31) between 2014 and 2019. Outcomes were retrospectively assessed via Foot and Ankle Outcome Scores (FAOS), return to activity, and complication rate. Results: Sixty-four patients (64 feet) were included with a mean age of 50.3 ± 12.9 years and mean follow-up of 23.2 ± 22.3 months. No differences were observed between groups preoperatively. Significant improvements in 4 of 5 FAOS subscales were observed postoperatively in both groups ( P < .05 for all, paired t test). However, patients undergoing concomitant calcium phosphate injection reported significantly better scores for both activities of daily living (ADL; mean difference +10.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07-20.2) and foot-specific QOL (mean difference +21.9, 95% CI 7.0-36.6) at final follow-up compared with those undergoing plantar fasciotomy alone. All patients returned to their desired level of activity, and the frequency of complications did not differ between groups ( P > .05, Fisher exact test). Conclusion: In patients presenting with recalcitrant infracalcaneal heel pain accompanied by calcaneal BME, calcium phosphate injection into the calcaneus, when combined with plantar fasciotomy, was safe and more effective than traditional plantar fasciotomy alone. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

A novel closed technique for ultrasound-guided plantar fascia release with a needle: review of 107 cases with a minimum follow-up of 24 months

Background This study aims to analyze the clinical outcome of a new ultrasound-guided surgery for partial plantar fasciotomy performed with a needle for treatment of plantar fasciitis. Methods We performed a retrospective review of 107 patients diagnosed with plantar fasciitis who underwent ultrasound-guided release of the plantar fascia. The series included 62 males (57.9%) and 45 females (42.1%) treated between April 2014 and February 2018, with a mean follow-up of 21.05 ± 10.96 months (7–66) and a minimum follow-up of 24 months. The mean age was 48.10 ± 10.27 years (27–72). Clinical assessments and ultrasound examination were carried out before treatment, after 1 week, and then after 1, 3, 12, and 24 months. The clinical assessment was based on a visual analog scale and the Foot and Ankle Disability Index. Results Heel pain improved in 92.5% (99) of patients, but not in 7.4% (8 patients). In the group of patients whose heel pain improved, 9 experienced overload on the lateral column and dorsum of the foot, which improved with the use of plantar orthoses and a rehabilitation program. We recorded no nerve complications (e.g., paresthesia), vascular injuries, or wound-related problems. Conclusion Ultrasound-guided partial plantar fasciotomy with a needle is safe, since structures are under direct visualization of the surgeon and the risk of damage is minimal. Stitches are not necessary, and recovery is fast. Consequently, costs are low, and the patient can return to work quickly. This technique may represent a valid option for treatment of plantar fasciitis.

Endoscopic Partial Plantar Fasciotomy via 2 Medial Portals vs Mini-Open Procedure for Refractory Plantar Fasciitis

Background: The treatment of plantar fasciitis may require surgical intervention in patients with ineffective response to conservative treatment. There is a lack of evidence regarding the differences in clinical outcomes between the endoscopic and the mini-open procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the endoscopic partial plantar fasciotomy via 2 medial portals with mini-open partial plantar fasciotomy for treating refractory plantar fasciitis. Methods: A retrospective analysis was carried out on 62 patients with refractory plantar fasciitis from January 2015 to July 2017. Thirty-three patients received endoscopic partial plantar fasciotomy, while the other 29 received mini-open procedure by patient preference. Two medial portals were used in the endoscopic group while single mini-medial method was used in the open group. All patients were followed up for 24 months. The pain visual analog scale (VAS), the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, the calcaneodynia score (CS), and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36) were employed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of the 2 groups. Results: There was increase in the functional scores (eg, VAS, AOFAS, CS, and SF-36) in both groups recorded at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery. The patients in the endoscopic group had better VAS, AOFAS, CS, and SF-36 scores at 3 months after the surgery compared with those of the open group. During the 6-month follow-up, although the 2 groups showed similar VAS and AOFAS, the CS and SF-36 scores of the endoscopic group were significantly higher than those of the open group. During the 1-year and 2-year follow-ups, the endoscopic group gained equivalent VAS, AOFAS, CS, and SF-36 scores compared with those of the open group. The recurrence rate was similar in both groups. Moreover, the patients in the endoscopic group achieved earlier recovery in comparison to those in the open group. Conclusion: For refractory plantar fasciitis, endoscopic partial plantar fasciotomy via 2 medial portals produced better short-term and equivalent long-term subjective outcomes than the mini-open surgery. Level of Evidence: Level II, comparative study.