Background: Plantar fasciitis is a common cause of foot pain. If conservative treatment fails, there is no consensus as to the best surgical management for recalcitrant plantar fasciitis (RPF). The aim of this study was to compare the results obtained from proximal medial gastrocnemius release (PMGR) with those obtained from open plantar fasciotomy (OPF) in terms of pain, satisfaction, health-related quality of life, and American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score. Methods: This is a prospective randomized trial conducted between 2012 and 2016. Patients with RPF for at least 9 months were included. Diagnosis was clinically made. The exclusion criteria were neuropathic heel pain; a history of previous foot fracture, surgery, or deformity; rheumatoid arthritis; or the need for long-term analgesic administration. After ruling out other conditions with magnetic resonance or ultrasound imaging, patients were randomized to be operated on with OPF or PMGR independently of the Silfverskjold test. Follow-up was carried out for up to 1 year. The AOFAS, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, SF-36, and Likert scale for satisfaction were used to evaluate the results obtained. The analysis was done with 21 patients in the OPF group and 15 in the PMGR group. The demographic data (age, sex, body mass index, duration of symptoms, and positivity to the Silfverskjold test) of the groups were comparable. Results: No differences were found in terms of the AOFAS ( P = .24), VAS ( P = .14), or any item of the SF-36. Satisfaction was very good in 85.8% of the PMGR group and 89.5% of the OPF group ( P = .27). Faster recovery was observed in the PMGR group. Conclusion: OPF and PMGR provided good results for patients with RPF. Neither was superior to the other relative to pain, AOFAS score, satisfaction, or the SF-36. We recommend PMGR as the first option in RPF surgical management in order to avoid potential biomechanical complications related to OPF. Level of Evidence: Level I, therapeutic randomized controlled trial.

Level I, randomized controlled trial.

Based on these results, the use of this complementary tool may not be systematically recommended. In addition, it was not possible to identify a biophysical profile of patients in whom the intervention could be most effective.