Clinical Outcomes of Insertional Achilles Tendinopathy Patients Treated with Reattachment and Dorsal Closing Wedge Calcaneal Osteotomy: A Meta-analysis

Category: Hindfoot; Sports Introduction/Purpose: Posterior heel pain at the Achilles tendon insertion is a prevalent and debilitating condition that is not yet fully understood. It results from a combination of bony and soft tissue abnormalities, including insertional Achilles tendinopathy, retrocalcaneal bursitis, and posterosuperior bony prominence. While the most commonly used surgical technique for treatment is debridement and reattachment of the tendon, dorsal closing wedge calcaneal osteotomy (DCWCO) has recently gained popularity. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to analyze the published literature related to both surgical techniques and compare their outcomes. Our hypothesis was that DCWCO can provide similar clinical outcomes with a lower complication rate. Methods: We conducted a literature search in Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases. Clinical studies reporting at least one of the clinical outcomes among AOFAS score and complications, with an open technique and sufficient data to extract and pool, were included. The extraction was made by two users using the Covidence platform. Studies with less than 10 patients or less than 12 months follow-up were excluded. Initial search yielded 329 papers, and after excluding duplicates and irrelevant studies, 43 papers were left. After a full-text review of these 43 papers, we found 15 papers eligible for meta-analysis. We used the Modified Coleman Methodology to assess the quality of papers. Results: Out of the 15 articles, seven included reattachment patients, while eight included DCWCO patients. 171 feet underwent reattachment, while 239 feet underwent DCWCO. The average follow-up of patients was significantly higher in the DCWCO group (42.2 months) than reattachment group (23.2 months). The average AOFAS score improvement was similar between the groups. The total complication numbers were 30 (16.6%) in the reattachment group and 28 (9.2%) in the DCWCO group, but the difference did not reach significance since the confidence intervals were overlapping. However, wound complications were significantly more common in Reattachment group (10.1%) compared to DCWCO (2.5%). The number of revision surgeries and neurological complications (sural neuritis, hypersensitivity, etc.) were similar between the groups. The average AOFAS score improvement was similar between the groups. Conclusion: Both techniques yielded comparable clinical outcomes. The overall complication rate was similar, but DCWCO exhibited a lower wound complication rate than reattachment. Therefore, the study results imply that DCWCO can provide similar clinical outcomes with fewer wound complications. However, further well-designed studies are necessary to reach a definitive conclusion on this matter and compare both techniques in the same study setting