Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 16, 2026
Autologous Microfractured and Purified Adipose Tissue for Arthroscopic Management of Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus
Published on: January 23, 2018
Percutaneous Zadek Osteotomy vs Open Haglund Resection for Insertional Achilles Tendinopathy: Early Outcomes and
Sarah Hall Kiriluk1,2, Ettore Vulcano3, Oliver N Schipper4
1University of South Carolina, School of Medicine, Columbia, SC, USA.
Background:
Insertional Achilles tendinopathy (IAT) is difficult to manage despite multiple surgical options. Two of the surgical options include an open midline Achilles tendon-splitting Haglund resection and a percutaneous Zadek osteotomy (ZO). The current study compared the patient-reported outcomes and complications of open vs percutaneous procedures in patients with IAT ± Haglund deformity.
Methods:
A retrospective comparative study of consecutive patients who underwent either an open midline Achilles tendon-splitting Haglund resection or percutaneous ZO for IAT ± Haglund deformity at a single institution with minimum 12 months' follow-up was performed. Preoperative and postoperative Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores and complications were recorded for each patient and compared between cohorts.
Results:
Forty-three patients were treated with an open midline Achilles tendon-splitting Haglund resection and 34 patients were treated with a percutaneous ZO for IAT ± Haglund deformity. PROMIS function (P < .001), pain (P < .001), and mobility (P < .001) scores significantly improved in patients who received either procedure. In the open midline Achilles tendon-splitting Haglund resection cohort, a significant increase in wound complications (11/43, 25.6%) was observed in comparison to the percutaneous ZO group (1/34, 2.9%; P = .007).ConclusionBoth techniques yielded clinically meaningful improvements in PROMIS scores. In this modest retrospective cohort, the percutaneous ZO was associated with fewer minor wound complications; however, this observation should be interpreted cautiously given the limited sample size, short follow-up, and potential selection bias.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III, retrospective cohort study.
