Mid-Sole Release of the Plantar Fascia Combined With Percutaneous Drilling of the Calcaneus for Treatment of Resistant Heel Pain

Clinical Study of a Four-Step Program for the Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis with Bone Spurs

OBJECTIVE

The most common causes of plantar and heel pain are plantar fasciitis and calcaneal spurs, and they often co-exist. Surgery is a recognized treatment for refractory plantar fasciitis. However, few studies have proposed treatment options for patients with metatarsophalangeal fasciitis with bone spurs. Accordingly, this study's purpose was to propose a four-step surgical regimen, and to improve the surgical outcome of plantar fasciitis with osteophytes and to establish a procedure for surgical treatment.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 45 patients suffering from plantar fasciitis with bone spurs from 2020 to 2023. All patients underwent a four-step procedure, including plantar fascia release, calcaneal spur grinding, inflammatory tissue removal, and calcaneal burr decompression. The imaging parameters and functional scores were recorded before and after the operation. The objective evaluation included the measurement of calcaneal spur length on radiographs. Clinical evaluation included the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the Foot and Ankle Outcome Scale (FAOS). Measurement data that conformed to normal distribution were expressed as (x2 ± s), and pre-and postoperative AOFAS, FAOS, and VAS scores were compared using repeated-measures ANOVA, and preoperative and postoperative spur lengths were compared using paired t-tests.

RESULTS

The 45 patients were followed up for 3 to 30 months, (17.72 ± 8.53) months, at final follow-up, the patient's AOFAS score improved from preoperative (74.93 ± 5.56) to (94.78 ± 3.98), FAOS score increased from preoperative (76.42 ± 3.37) to (96.16 ± 2.74), the VAS score decreased from (3.18 ± 0.54) to (1.07 ± 1.20) (p < 0.05), the length of spur decreased from (0.72 ± 1.81) cm to (0.23 ± 1.19) cm, and there were significant differences before and after operation (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The four-step surgical regimen is an appropriate and effective surgical procedure to treat plantar fasciitis with bone spurs.

Comparison of the Isolated Plantar Fascia Release Versus Plantar Fascia Release Combined With Calcaneal Decompression in Management of the Patients With Resistant Heel Pain

We aimed to compare isolated percutaneous plantar fascia release by using a needle versus percutaneous plantar fascia release combined with calcaneal decompression in treatment of the patients with resistant heel pain. We reviewed the prospectively recorded data of patients who treated and follow-up for resistant heel pain (treated more than 6 months with other treatment modalities) with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Twenty patients were treated with plantar fascia release using a needle (group 1) and 21 patients were treated with a similar percutaneous release combined with calcaneal decompression (group 2). Functional outcomes were evaluated using visual analog scale (VAS) and Foot Function Index (FFI) pre- and postoperatively. No significant differences were observed between both groups in terms of age (44.3 years in group 1 vs 46.8 years in group 2), gender (18 females and 2 males in group 1 vs 19 females and 3 males in group 2), body mass index (25.1 in group 1 vs 26.3 in group 2), and follow-up (14.6 months in group 1 vs 15.7 months in group 2). The decrease in postoperative FFI and VAS scores compared with preoperative VAS scores was statistically significant in both groups. However, improvement of FFI and VAS score was significantly higher in group 2 than group 1. Although both methods are very effective in the treatment of persistent heel pain, the group 2 has a better improvement in functional scores than group 1 with a mean 15 months following the procedure.

Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Local Injection of Allogeneic Growth Factors in Plantar Fasciitis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of injection of allogeneic growth factors in patients with plantar fasciitis.

METHODS

This study included 150 patients who were randomly divided into 2 equal groups; the patients were locally injected with allogeneic growth factors (GFs) (treatment group) or with saline 0.9% (control group). The patients were assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) and Foot Function Index-Revised short form (FFI-Rs) scores preinjection and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postinjection. The patients were questioned about their satisfaction. Any adverse effects were recorded.

RESULTS

At baseline, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean VAS and FFI-Rs scores. At 3-month follow-up, the reduction in mean VAS score was 87% in the treatment group and 55% in the control group (P < .001), and the reduction in mean FFI-Rs score was 62% in the treatment group and 40% in the control group (P < .001). Treatment group and study visit were significant factors affecting both VAS and FFI-Rs scores. Overall, 92% were satisfied in the treatment group, and 78.2% in the control group. Postinjection pain occurred in 5 patients in the treatment group.

CONCLUSION

This study provides Level I evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of allogeneic GF injection in patients with plantar fasciitis. However, additional studies are needed to evaluate their adverse effects, immunogenicity, and microbiological safety.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, prospective randomized controlled case series.

Evaluation and Treatment of Chronic Plantar Fasciitis

Plantar fasciitis is the most common cause of chronic heel pain in adults, affecting both young active patients and older sedentary individuals. It results from repetitive stress to the plantar fascia at its origin on the medial tubercle of the calcaneus and is often associated with gastrocnemius tightness. The diagnosis can be made clinically with a focused history and physical examination; imaging is reserved for atypical presentations and those that do not respond to initial treatment. The most common presenting symptom is aching plantar heel pain, which is worst with first step in the morning or after periods of rest. Diagnosis is confirmed with point tenderness at the origin of the plantar fascia on the medial tubercle of the calcaneus. Initial treatment consists of activity modification, anti-inflammatory medication, gastrocnemius and plantar fascia stretching, and an in-shoe orthosis that lifts and cushions the heel. These nonoperative treatments lead to complete resolution of pain in 90% of patients but can take 3-6 months. Patients who remain symptomatic despite a 6-month trial of nonoperative therapy may be considered for minimally invasive treatment or surgery. Platelet-rich plasma injections and therapeutic ultrasound are among a number of minimally invasive treatments that stimulate the body's healing response. Corticosteroid injections temporarily relieve pain, but may increase the risk of plantar fascia rupture and fat pad atrophy. Botulinum toxin injections relax the calf muscles, which decreases the stress in the plantar fascia. Operative treatments include gastrocnemius recession and medial head of gastrocnemius release, which decrease the stress on the plantar fascia and partial planter fasciotomy, which stimulates a healing response.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

Efficacy of foot orthoses for the treatment of plantar heel pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Plantar heel pain (PHP) is common. Foot orthoses are often applied as treatment for PHP, even though there is little evidence to support this.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of different orthoses on pain, function and self-reported recovery in patients with PHP and compare them with other conservative interventions.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar up to January 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials comparing foot orthoses with a control (defined as no intervention, sham or other type of conservative treatment) reporting on pain, function or self-reported recovery in patients with PHP.

RESULTS

Twenty studies investigating eight different types of foot orthoses were included in the review. Most studies were of high quality. Pooled data from six studies showed no difference between prefabricated orthoses and sham orthoses for pain at short term (mean difference (MD) of 0.26 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.60)). No difference was found between sham orthoses and custom orthoses for pain at short term (MD 0.22 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.50)), nor was there a difference between prefabricated orthoses and custom orthoses for pain at short term (MD 0.03 (95% CI -0.15 to 0.22)). For the majority of other interventions, no significant differences were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Foot orthoses are not superior for improving pain and function compared with sham or other conservative treatment in patients with PHP.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015029659.