Open vs Endoscopic Surgical Treatment for Haglund Deformity: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression.

BACKGROUND

Haglund deformity, characterized by a bony prominence at the posterosuperior aspect of the calcaneus, is a frequent cause of posterior heel pain and Achilles tendinopathy. When conservative treatment fails, surgical resection is indicated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare clinical and functional outcomes of open and endoscopic surgery in adults with Haglund deformity.

METHODS

The review followed PRISMA guidelines, was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251061639), and included randomized trials or observational cohort studies directly comparing both techniques. The primary outcome was postoperative ankle function (American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score or the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment-Achilles questionnaire scores); secondary outcomes included operative time, postoperative pain (visual analog scale), and adverse events. Random effects (restricted maximum likelihood) meta-analyses were performed, and risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

Five cohort studies, totaling 226 patients (127 endoscopic, 99 open), met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in postoperative ankle function between techniques (standardized mean difference = -0.19, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.35; I² = 66.7%). Operative time was shorter in the open surgery group (mean difference = -11.73 minutes, 95% CI -23.03 to -0.42; I² = 94.6%). No significant differences were observed in postoperative pain or adverse events. All studies had a serious overall risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

The available comparative observational evidence does not demonstrate clear superiority of either technique for the evaluated outcomes. Interpretation of symptom and function outcomes is limited by the measurement properties of the instruments used in the source studies. These findings represent a conservative synthesis of the best comparative evidence currently available and highlight the need for adequately powered randomized clinical trials with standardized outcome measures to more reliably inform surgical decision making.