BACKGROUND: In a prospective randomized study, we compared two different surgical techniques used in plantar fasciitis surgery. METHODS:Forty-eight patients diagnosed as having plantar fasciitis and treated for at least 6 months with no response to conservative modalities were included in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to receive endoscopic plantar fascia release (EPFR) or cryosurgery (CS). Patients were evaluated using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot Scale (AOFAS-AHS) as a primary outcome measurement at baseline and 3 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. At the final follow-up visit, the Roles-Maudsley score was used to determine patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Five patients did not complete the 1-year follow-up examination (one in the EPFR group and four in the CS group). Thus, the study group included 43 patients. Although both groups showed significant improvement at the final evaluation, the patients in the EPFR group had significantly better AOFAS-AHS scores at 3 months. The success rate (Roles-Maudsley scores of excellent and good) in the EPFR group at 12 months was 87% and in the CS group was 65%. CONCLUSIONS: Both EPFR and CS were associated with statistically significant improvements at 1-year follow-up. At 3-month follow-up, EPFR was associated with better results and a higher patient satisfaction rate compared with CS. American Podiatric Medical Association.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In a prospective randomized study, we compared two different surgical techniques used in plantar fasciitis surgery. METHODS: Forty-eight patients diagnosed as having plantar fasciitis and treated for at least 6 months with no response to conservative modalities were included in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to receive endoscopic plantar fascia release (EPFR) or cryosurgery (CS). Patients were evaluated using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot Scale (AOFAS-AHS) as a primary outcome measurement at baseline and 3 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. At the final follow-up visit, the Roles-Maudsley score was used to determine patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Five patients did not complete the 1-year follow-up examination (one in the EPFR group and four in the CS group). Thus, the study group included 43 patients. Although both groups showed significant improvement at the final evaluation, the patients in the EPFR group had significantly better AOFAS-AHS scores at 3 months. The success rate (Roles-Maudsley scores of excellent and good) in the EPFR group at 12 months was 87% and in the CS group was 65%. CONCLUSIONS: Both EPFR and CS were associated with statistically significant improvements at 1-year follow-up. At 3-month follow-up, EPFR was associated with better results and a higher patient satisfaction rate compared with CS. American Podiatric Medical Association.