Endoscopic plantar fasciotomy versus injection of platelet-rich plasma for resistant plantar fasciopathy

Surgical treatment options for plantar fasciitis and their effectiveness: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To date, there are no systematic reviews on the utility of surgical management for plantar fasciitis to guide best practice. This review aimed to evaluate the operative options for plantar fasciitis and their effectiveness.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis were carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy was conducted on the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Quality was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

17 studies involving 865 patients were included. Surgical options considered were open and endoscopic plantar fasciotomy, gastrocnemius release, radiofrequency microtenotomy and dry needling. All interventions resulted in improvement in VAS and AOFAS scores. No major complications were seen from any treatment modality.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical interventions are effective in providing short- to medium-term symptomatic relief for plantar fasciitis refractory to non-operative management. Current evidence is equivocal regarding treatment choice. Further large randomised studies are required to establish long-term outcomes and a management algorithm.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Comparison of Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment and Partial Plantar Fasciotomy Surgery in Patients with Chronic Plantar Fasciitis: A Randomized, Prospective Study

Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) injection has become a desirable alternative to Partial Plantar Fasciotomy (PPF) surgery and steroid injection for patients with chronic plantar fasciitis (CPF) due to its potential for shorter recovery times, reduced complications, and similar activity scores. As such, we compared PRP treatment to PPF surgery in patients with CPF. Between January 2015 and January 2017, patients were randomly divided into two groups, a PRP treatment group, and a PPF group. All procedures were performed by a single foot and ankle fellowship-trained specialist surgeon. Visual Analog Score (VAS) and Roles-Maudsley Scale (RM) were collected during the preoperative visit and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The patients were also closely followed by a physiotherapist. There were 16 patients in each group after four patients refused to participate. Patients in the PPF had low Roles-Maudsley Scale (RM) scores compared to the PRP group one-year after treatment (3.77 vs. 2.72, p < 0.0001). Both procedures showed a reduction in RM scores during the follow-up year (9 to 1.62 for PPF and 8.7 to 2.4 for PRP). There was no significant change in VAS pain between the two groups (p = 0.366). Patients treated with PRP injection reported a significant increase in their activity scores, shorter recovery time, and lower complication rates compared to PPF treatment. Moreover, with respect to existing literature, PRP may be as efficient as steroid injection with lower complication rates, including response to physical therapy. Therefore, PRP treatment may be a viable option before surgery as an earlier line treatment for CPF. Level of Clinical Evidence: II.

Outcomes of Endoscopic Treatment for Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic plantar fascia release (EPFR) is an established operative treatment for recalcitrant plantar fasciitis. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive review on the outcomes of EPFR in the treatment of plantar fasciitis at mid-term and long-term follow-up.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases in May 2020 based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies included were evaluated regarding level of evidence (LOE) and quality of evidence (QOE) using the modified Coleman methodological score. Clinical outcomes and complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies including 978 feet were included in this systematic review with a weighted mean follow-up of 25.6 ± 21.0 months. Eighteen papers used the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score. The weighted mean preoperative AOFAS score was 55.66 ± 10.3, and the postoperative score was 89.6 ± 5.2 out of 100. The total number of patients who had complications was 88 of 994 (8.9%). The most common complication was recurrence of pain experienced by 41 patients (4.2%).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic plantar fascia release provides good clinical and functional outcomes in patients with refractory plantar fasciitis. However, this procedure is associated with a moderately high complication rate (8.9%) and should only be considered following failure of conservative management. Future prospective studies comparing the various endoscopic and open techniques with nonoperative treatment are required to elucidate the most effective management for recalcitrant plantar fasciitis.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level I: Systematic review of level IV studies.

What is the evidence for efficacy, effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions for plantar fasciopathy? A systematic review

Aims

To systematically review randomised control trials (RCT’s) assessing the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions in adults with plantar fasciopathy (PF).

Materials and methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registries and references lists. RCT’s comparing surgical interventions with non-surgical or surgical comparisons in adults with PF were included. Primary outcomes were changes in first step pain severity/intensity, and incidence/nature of adverse events. Secondary outcomes included foot and ankle related disability/function, health related quality of life, cost effectiveness, changes in other reported measures of pain and medication use. Data were extracted at short-term (≤3 months post-intervention), medium-term (>3months—≤6 months post-intervention) or long-term (>6 months—≤2 years post-treatment). Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

Results

From 3620 screened records, we included 8 studies comprising 345 patients. Substantial variation across trials precluded meta-analysis, hence a narrative synthesis was conducted. We judged all studies to have high risk of bias. For all outcome comparisons our GRADE judgement for the certainty of the evidence was very low. Three studies compared one type of surgery with another largely showing little to no difference in outcomes for pain, function or quality of life. Five studies compared surgery with non-surgical interventions—three providing very low certainty evidence that surgery may improve pain and function at long-term follow-up compared to non-surgical comparisons, whereas two studies provided no long-term between-group differences. Reporting of adverse events were inadequate, inconsistent or absent across all studies.

Conclusion

There is a paucity of high certainty evidence to support or refute the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions in the management of PF. We make recommendations for improving the evidence base in this field.

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.

Two-Portal Endoscopic Plantar Fascia Release: Step-by-Step Surgical Technique

Plantar fasciitis is a common condition of heel pain with a lifetime incidence up to 10%. For this entity, conservative treatment is considered the gold standard, involving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, stretching exercises of the plantar fascia, activity modifications, ice, and insoles. When patients do not respond to these treatments, partial or total plantar fascia release has been the mainstay of treatment, with success rates of approximately 70% to 90%. For this purpose, several techniques have been described, including open, percutaneous, and endoscopic release. The objective of this Technical Note is to describe the nonassisted 2-portal endoscopic plantar fascia release in a patient with recalcitrant plantar fasciitis.

Post-Procedure Protocols Following Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been increasingly studied as a treatment for tendinopathy. Many factors may influence outcomes after PRP, including different protocols following administration. It was hypothesized that there would be heterogeneity in post-PRP protocols.

LITERATURE SURVEY

A systematized review of the literature on post-PRP protocols for tendinopathy was conducted using an electronic search of MEDLINE and Embase databases through September 2018.

METHODOLOGY

After duplicates were removed, English language articles involving adult patients who received PRP for tendinopathy were reviewed. Exclusion criteria included studies with fewer than 10 patients, PRP used to treat pathology other than tendinopathy, multiple protocols in one study, and surgical settings. Protocol specifics were extracted including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) restrictions before and after injection, postinjection restrictions on movement and weight bearing, use of orthoses, activity modifications, and postinjection rehabilitation protocols. Given limitations in the data, a meta-analysis was not performed.

SYNTHESIS

Eighty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Following PRP injection, weight-bearing restrictions were mentioned rarely (12% of protocols). Orthosis use was uncommon overall (18%) but more common in Achilles tendinopathy protocols (53%). The majority of protocols instituted a period of stretching (51%) and strengthening (54%). Stretching programs generally began 2-7 days following injection, and strengthening programs began within 2-3 weeks. Preinjection NSAID restriction was reported rarely (20%), whereas postinjection NSAID restriction was more common (56%), with a typical restriction of greater than 2 weeks (38%). Return to play or full activity was reported in 42% of protocols, most commonly at 4-6 weeks following injection.

CONCLUSION

Although the clinical effectiveness of PRP remains controversial, even less is known about the effect of post-PRP protocols, which may affect the outcomes attributed to PRP itself. No studies directly compare post-PRP protocols, and the protocols studied demonstrate substantial heterogeneity. Some consensus regarding post-PRP protocols exists, although the rationale for these recommendations is limited.

The clinical outcome of endoscopic plantar fascia release: A current concept review

PURPOSE

To clarify whether endoscopic plantar fascia release is safe and effective in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis. Secondary goals were a. to compare the clinical outcome between EPFR and non-operative treatment and b. to describe the various EPFR surgical approaches and their outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two reviewers (MM and EBC) independently conducted the search using the MEDLINE/PubMed database. This database was queried with the terms 'endoscopic plantar fascia release' and 'endoscopic plantar fasciotomy'. To maximize the search, backward chaining of reference lists from retrieved papers was also undertaken.

RESULTS

From the initial 63 studies we finally chose and assessed 15 studies which were eligible to our inclusion-exclusion criteria. A total number of 535 patients (576 feet) were reported, with a slightly higher female rate. The vast majority of the studies were case series (66.7% of all), while two papers were randomized controlled trials (13.3%), two were case control studies (13.3%), and one was cohort study (6.7%). The overall quality of the studies included in this review, as it was evaluated according to the GRADE Working Group guidelines, was low, while it ranged from very low to high. All studies showed that the postoperative clinical and functional subjective scores were significantly improved with the use of EPFR. Overall, the postoperative complications' rate was 11.0%. The most common complications which were recorded were persistent heel pain (5.6%), paresthesias or numbness (4.3%), soft tissue healing problems (1.7%), and superficial infection (0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was weak evidence to support that endoscopic plantar fascia release was safe and effective for the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis.

Comparative effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave, ultrasound, low-level laser therapy, noninvasive interactive neurostimulation, and pulsed radiofrequency treatment for treating plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Plantar fasciitis is one of the most common causes of adult heel pain. The aim of this study is to comprehensively compare the effectiveness of various therapies for plantar fasciitis using network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Studies were comprehensively searched on Embase, MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) up to December 4, 2017. Randomized controlled trials that used extracorporeal shock wave therapy, ultrasound, ultrasound-guided pulsed radiofrequency treatment (UG-PRF), intracorporeal pneumatic shock therapy (IPST), low-level laser therapy (LLLT), and noninvasive interactive neurostimulation (NIN) for the treatment of plantar fasciitis were included. The primary outcome is change in pain relief. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Quality assessment was performed using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Nineteen trials with 1676 patients with plantar fasciitis plantar fasciitis were included. In the pair-wise meta-analysis, radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (RSW), LLLT, and IPST showed a significant pooled reduction in the visual analogue scale (VAS) compared with placebo at 0 to 6 weeks [mean difference (MD) = 6.60, 95% confidence interval (CI): (6.04, -7.16); MD = 2.34, 95% CI: (1.60, 3.08); MD = 2.24, 95% CI: (1.44, 3.04), respectively]. Compared with placebo, UG-PRF [MD = 2.31, 95% CI: (1.26, 3.36)] and high-intensity focused extracorporeal shock wave (H-FSW) [MD = 0.82, 95% CI: (0.20, 1.45)] showed superior pain-relieving effects at 2 to 4 months; UG-PRF [MD = 1.11, 95% CI: (0.07, 2.15)] and IPST [MD = 4.92, 95% CI: (4.11, 5.73)] showed superior effects at 6 to 12 months. In the network meta-analysis, only RSW induced significant pain reduction compared with placebo at 0 to 6 weeks [MD = 3.67, 95% CI: (0.31, 6.9)]. No significant differences were found for the 2 to 4-month and 6 to 12-month periods because of the wide 95% CIs.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend treating plantar fasciitis with RSW. The commonly used ultrasound and focused extracorporeal shock wave (FSW) therapies can be considered as alternative treatment candidates. IPST, NIN, and LLLT may potentially be better alternatives, although their superiority should be confirmed by additional comprehensive evidence.PROSPERO registration number: PROSPERO (CRD42015017353).

The role of rehabilitation after regenerative and orthobiologic procedures for the treatment of tendinopathy: a systematic review

Aim: Significant variability exists in the literature, with no clear consensus to the optimal protocol after a regenerative procedure. Given this uncertainty, the authors systematically reviewed the literature cataloging the different variables that may influence outcomes. Methods: Search was limited to randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies of regenerative procedures for the treatment of tendinopathy. Variables were predetermined, and included: cyrotherapy, pre- and post-procedure nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs use, recommendations for alternative pain medications, immobilization and duration of rest. Variables were categorized based on the influence of the intervention on the three phases of healing. Results: 749 studies were assessed for eligibility, and 60 studies were included. Significant variability existed in the literature. Conclusion: Despite the importance of rehabilitation after regenerative procedures, there is a paucity of evidence available to guide clinicians and highlights the need for additional validation.