title: Chronic plantar fasciitis: plantar fasciotomy versus gastrocnemius recession.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to compare results of partial proximal fasciotomy (PPF) with proximal medial gastrocnemius release (PMGR) in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis (CPF).
  
  
  METHODS
  This retrospective study compares 30 patients with CPF that underwent PPF with 30 that underwent isolated PMGR. Both groups were matched in terms of previous treatments and time from onset of symptoms to surgery. Different standardised evaluation scales (VAS, Likert, AOFASh) were used to evaluate results.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Plantar fasciotomy had satisfactory results in just 60 % of patients, with an average ten weeks needed to resume work and sports. Patient satisfaction in the PMGR group reached 95 %, being back to work and sports at three weeks on average. Functional and pain scores were considerably better for PMGR and fewer complications registered.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In our series, isolated PMGR is a simple and reliable procedure to treat patients with CPF. It provides far better results than conventional fasciotomy with less morbidity and better patient satisfaction, and thus has become our surgical procedure of choice in recalcitrant CPF.
authors: Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Unit, Orthopaedics and Trauma Department, Hospital Universitario Quiron Madrid, Spain. mmontyr@yahoo.com
authors: Manuel
authors: M
authors: Monteagudo
authors: Ernesto
authors: E
authors: Maceira
authors: Virginia
authors: V
authors: Garcia-Virto
authors: Rafael
authors: R
authors: Canosa
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D002908:Chronic Disease; D036981:Fasciitis, Plantar / Q000601:surgery*; D000071938:Fasciotomy; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D018482:Muscle, Skeletal / Q000601:surgery*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D055815:Young Adult
references: Foot Ankle Int. 2006 Jan;27(1):43-52
references: 16442028
references: Foot Ankle Int. 2010 May;31(5):377-84
references: 20460063
references: Foot Ankle Int. 2012 Jan;33(1):14-9
references: 22381231
references: Int Orthop. 2013 May;37(5):839-42
references: 23250352
references: Foot Ankle Int. 2009 Dec;30(12):1202-6
references: 20003880
references: J Foot Ankle Surg. 1993 Nov-Dec;32(6):595-603
references: 8130790
references: Foot Ankle Int. 2007 Nov;28(11):1154-9
references: 18021583
references: Foot Ankle Int. 2010 Jan;31(1):19-23
references: 20067718
references: Br J Sports Med. 2006 Oct;40(10):870-5; discussion 875
references: 16926259
references: Foot Ankle Int. 2000 Jan;21(1):18-25
references: 10710257
references: Reumatol Clin. 2007 Jul;3(4):159-65
references: 21794421
references: Foot Ankle Int. 1996 Sep;17(9):520-6
references: 8886777
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 May;85(5):872-7
references: 12728038
references: Foot Ankle Int. 2012 Jan;33(1):37-43
references: 22381234
references: J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2003 May-Jun;93(3):234-7
references: 12756315
references: Foot Ankle Int. 1999 Dec;20(12):803-7
references: 10609710
references: Foot Ankle Int. 2011 Jan;32(1):5-8
references: 21288428
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Jun;84(6):962-70
references: 12063330
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Mar;86(3):546-52
references: 14996881
references: Foot Ankle Int. 2004 May;25(5):303-10
references: 15134610