Outcomes of Endoscopic Treatment for Plantar Fasciitis: A Systematic Review

Foot Ankle Spec. 2022 Nov 7:19386400221129167. doi: 10.1177/19386400221129167. Online ahead of print.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: endoscopic; plantar fasciitis; release; review.

Publication types

  • Review