Arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis: indication, technique and early results

Recalcitrant Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review on Current Nonoperative and Operative Treatment Modalities

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis is a common cause of elbow pain that is generally self-limiting. For patients who have persistent symptoms refractory to conservative treatment, there is still no clear consensus on the most favorable treatment modality. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the available literature regarding both nonoperative and operative treatment modalities for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis (RLE) to provide insight into the efficacy of treatment options.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, where the PubMed, MEDLINE/Ovid, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were queried to identify studies evaluating treatment options for RLE.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies with 1,958 patients were included. Of the reviewed studies, there were a wide variety of treatments including platelet-rich plasma injections, percutaneous tenotomies, and various arthroscopic and open procedures.

CONCLUSION

There are a wide variety of treatment modalities available for RLE that have promising efficacy in the short, medium, and long terms. A comprehensive approach combining evidence-based and patient-centered care is critical for effective management of refractory symptoms.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Clinical Results of Percutaneous Drilling in the Treatment of Chronic Lateral Epicondylitis

AIM

Lateral epicondylitis is one of the leading orthopedic problems encountered in daily practice. Treatments are more symptomatic than curative. Percutaneous drilling is a minimally invasive method that provides satisfactory results. The aim of this study was to evaluate patients who had undergone percutaneous drilling for chronic lateral epicondylitis.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The study included 31 patients who underwent surgical percutaneous drilling because of chronic lateral epicondylitis between 2018 and 2021. The patients were evaluated with respect to demographic characteristics, including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), occupation, education level, hobbies, dominant side, and smoking status. The VAS (Visual Analog Scale) pain scores, PRTEE score (Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation - a lateral epicondylitis function scale), and Roles-Maudsly score were examined preoperatively and at one and 12 months postoperatively together with grip strength measured with a Jamar hand dynamometer.

RESULTS

Statistically significant improvements were determined in the VAS score during activity from 8.9 preoperatively to 2.06 at 12 months postoperatively (p<0.01), and in the PRTEE score, from 64.12 preoperatively to 20.61 at 12 months postoperatively (p<0.01). The Roles-Maudsly score at 12 months postoperatively was determined to be excellent in 13 (41.9%) patients, and good in 14 (45.2%). Mean grip strength increased from 69.55 before treatment to 90.97 at the end of 12 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Autobiological treatments are at the forefront of current treatments for tendinopathies. Percutaneous drilling is a closed method and can be considered an ideal method in the treatment of tendinosis caused by inflammation and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) contained in hematoma. It is also an advantageous treatment method for patients with aesthetic concerns as it does not leave any scar tissue and has a low risk of complications.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes After Different Surgical Approaches for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is one of the most common causes of lateral elbow pain. When nonoperative treatment fails, 1 of the 3 surgical approaches-open, percutaneous, or arthroscopic-is used. However, determining which approach has the superior clinical outcome remains controversial.

Purpose

To review the outcomes of different operative modalities for LE qualitatively and quantitatively.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

This review was performed and reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published in PubMed, Medline (via EBSCO), and ScienceDirect databases that treated LE with open, percutaneous, or arthroscopic approaches with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score. The primary outcome was the success rate of each operative treatment approach-open, percutaneous, and arthroscopic.

Results

From an initial search result of 603 studies, 43 studies (n = 1941 elbows) were ultimately included. The arthroscopic approach had the highest success rate (91.9% [95% CI, 89.2%-94.7%]) compared with the percutaneous (91% [95% CI, 87.3%-94.6%]) and open (82.7% [95% CI, 75.6%-89.8%]) approaches for LE surgery with changes in the mean visual analog scale pain score of 5.54, 4.90, and 3.63, respectively. According to the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, the functional outcome improved in the arthroscopic group (from 54.11 to 15.47), the percutaneous group (from 44.90 to 10.47), and the open group (from 53.55 to 16.13). The overall improvement was also found in the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, the arthroscopic group (from 55.12 to 90.97), the percutaneous group (from 56.31 to 87.65), and the open group (from 64 to 93.37).

Conclusion

Arthroscopic surgery had the highest rate of success and the best improvement in functional outcomes among the 3 approaches of LE surgery.

Editorial Commentary: Arthroscopic Debridement of Tennis Elbow Nonresponsive to Nonoperative Measures Is a Good Option and Clinical Outcomes Are Associated With Radiographic Outcomes

Chronic lateral epicondylitis, or "tennis elbow," is rare and affects 1% to 3% of adults annually. The initial treatment should be nonoperative and include physical therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication, rest, bracing, extracorporeal shock wave therapy, and injection therapy with various agents such as autologous blood, dextrose, corticosteroids, or platelet-rich plasma. The condition is self-limited, and approximately 80% of cases resolve. In refractory cases, arthroscopic release with debridement is a good surgical option but is not superior to open or percutaneous techniques. Recent research shows that a reduction in magnetic resonance imaging signal intensity in patients who respond to arthroscopic treatment correlates with pain reduction and functional outcome improvement.

Outcomes of Continued Intensive Conservative Treatment Versus Arthroscopic Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis Release for Recalcitrant Lateral Epicondylitis: A Non-randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

There is no consensus on treatment of recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis (RLE). This is a prospective, non-randomized, interventional study comparing pain scores and functional outcomes between arthroscopic extensor carpi radialis brevis release and continued intensive conservative treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study compared two groups: Group 1, consisting of 25 patients undergoing continued conservative treatment for 24 months, and Group 2, consisting of 25 patients undergoing arthroscopic extensor carpi radialis brevis release with decortication (ARD). VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) score for lateral elbow pain at rest and after routine daily activities were compared at 6 weeks, 24 weeks, 12 months and 24 months. Functional outcomes were compared with grip strength, and patients reported functional outcome scores, pre-intervention and 24 months post-intervention.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement in VAS scores for pain, functional outcome scores, and grip strength in both the groups post-intervention (P < 0.05). VAS scores for pain at rest in both the groups were significantly better after the interventions, at all follow-up durations (P < 0.001). VAS scores for pain after routine daily activities were significantly better in group 2 at 24 weeks (P = 0.002) and afterward (P < 0.001). Group 2 had significantly better functional outcome scores at 24 months (P < 0.001) though the difference in grip strength was not statistically significant (P = 0.121).

CONCLUSION

The present study shows favourable functional outcomes and pain scores of ARD compared to continued intensive conservative treatment for RLE.

LEVEL OF STUDY

II, Non-randomized comparative study.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-022-00649-w.

Lateral epicondylitis: New trends and challenges in treatment

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a chronic aseptic inflammatory condition caused by repetitive microtrauma and excessive overload of the extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle. This is the most common cause of musculoskeletal pain syndrome in the elbow, inducing significant pain and limitation of the function of the upper limb. It affects approximately 1-3% of the population and is frequently seen in racquet sports and sports associated with functional overload of the elbow, such as tennis, squash, gymnastics, acrobatics, fitness, and weight lifting. Typewriters, artists, musicians, electricians, mechanics, and other professions requiring frequent repetitive movements in the elbow and wrists are also affected. LE is a leading causation for absence from work and lower sport results in athletes. The treatment includes a variety of conservative measures, but if those fail, surgery is indicated. This review summarizes the knowledge about this disease, focusing on risk factors, expected course, prognosis, and conservative and surgical treatment approaches.

Epicondylopathia humeri radialis

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis is a common orthopaedic condition often massively restricting the quality of life of the affected patients. There are a wide variety of treatment options - with varying levels of evidence.

METHOD

The following statements and recommendations are based on the current German S2k guideline Epicondylopathia radialis humeri (AWMF registry number: 033 - 2019). All major German specialist societies participated in this guideline, which is based on a systematic review of the literature and a structured consensus-building process.

OUTCOMES

Lateral epicondylitis should be diagnosed clinically and can be confirmed by imaging modalities. The Guidelines Commission issues recommendations on clinical and radiological diagnostic workup. The clinical condition results from the accumulated effect of mechanical overload, neurologic irritation and metabolic changes. Differentiating between acute and chronic disorder is helpful. Prognosis of non-surgical regimens is favourable in most cases. Most cases spontaneously resolve within 12 months. In case of unsuccessful attempted non-surgical management for at least six months, surgery may be considered as an alternative, if there is a corresponding structural morphology and clinical manifestation. At present, it is not possible to recommend a specific surgical procedure.

CONCLUSION

This paper provides a summary of the guideline with extracts of the recommendations and statements of its authors regarding the pathogenesis, prevention, diagnostic workup as well as non-surgical and surgical management.

Arthroscopic Modified Bosworth Procedure for Refractory Lateral Elbow Pain With Radiocapitellar Joint Snapping

Background:

Radiocapitellar joint snapping due to the presence of synovial plica has been described as a contributory intra-articular pathology of lateral epicondylitis (LE).

Hypothesis:

The arthroscopic modified Bosworth technique can provide a safe and favorable outcome for refractory LE with radiocapitellar snapping.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Patients treated with the arthroscopic modified Bosworth procedure for refractory LE with radiocapitellar joint snapping were included in this study. The sequential surgical procedures included excision of the upper portion of the anterolateral annular ligament, removal of the synovial plicae, and release of the extensor carpi radialis brevis for all patients. Clinical outcomes were measured at a minimum 1-year follow-up.

Results:

A total of 22 patients with a mean ± SD age of 51.2 ± 10.4 years were included in this study. The mean follow-up was 29.4 ± 7.7 months (range, 21-42 months). The overall visual analog scale score (from preoperative to final follow-up) was 7.5 ± 1.2 vs 2.5 ± 1.8 (P < .001); flexion-extension motion arc was 133.8° ± 11.2° vs 146.4° ± 7.1° (P = .001); pronation-supination motion arc was 101.8° ± 9.2° vs 141.7° ± 10.2° (P = .001); Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 54.5 ± 13.2 vs 3.6 ± 4.1 (P < .001); and Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 51.9 ± 12.2 vs 84.3 ± 10.3 (P < .001).

Conclusion:

Radiocapitellar joint snapping may coexist with LE as a disease spectrum. The arthroscopic modified Bosworth technique provides safe and favorable outcomes for patients with refractory LE associated with radiocapitellar joint snapping.

Exclusive Posterolateral Arthroscopic and Endoscopic Approaches Used in the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis

Complications following arthroscopy of the elbow for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis are essentially related to the anterior arthroscopic approach. The principal aims of this study were to describe and evaluate the mixed arthroscopic and endoscopic surgical technique using posterolateral approaches exclusively. This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients operated on between 2005 and 2014 for lateral epicondylitis following more than 6 months of ineffective medical treatment. The exploration was arthroscopic via a distal posterolateral portal. The extensor carpi radialis brevis was disinserted via a proximal extra-articular posterolateral endoscopic portal. The postoperative clinical follow-up included subjective (visual analog scale, Nirschl) and objective (Mayo Clinic Elbow Performance Score) evaluations of pain, the time to return to work, the level of satisfaction, complications, and failures. Thirty-seven patients underwent the procedure, including 3 lost to follow-up. Mean±SD follow-up was 32.8±24.7 months. Mean±SD visual analog scale scores were 0.8±0.8 at rest, 2.4±1.3 during everyday activities, and 3.1±1.5 during effort. Mean±SD Mayo Clinic Elbow Evaluation Score was 10.1±1.0 of 12 and mean±SD Mayo Clinic Elbow Performance Score was 91.9±12.5 of 100. Mean±SD Nirschl score was 67.5±9.6 of 80. Mean±SD time to return to work was 2.0±2.6 months. The level of satisfaction was 94.1%. The failure rate was 2.9%, with no neurological lesions. With equivalent or even better results than those already published, this surgical procedure enables the treatment of lateral epicondylitis via posterolateral portals alone, thus avoiding the complications inherent to anterior and medial arthroscopic approaches. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(6):e521-e527.].

Tennis elbow: A clinical review article

Lateral epicondylitis, or tennis elbow is a common condition that presents with pain and tenderness around the common extensor origin of the elbow. Tennis elbow is estimated to affect 1-3% of the adult population each year and is more common in the dominant arm. It is generally regarded as an overuse injury involving repeated wrist extension against resistance, although it can occur as an acute injury (trauma to the lateral elbow). Up to 50% of all tennis players develop symptoms due to various factors including poor swing technique the use of heavy racquet. It's also seen in labourers who utilise heavy tools or engage in repetitive gripping or lifting task. In this article, we discuss the existing literature in the field and the current thinking on optimum treatment modalities. We have reviewed the literature available on med line and have discussed the condition with our specialist colleagues in the field.

A Systematic Review of Tennis Elbow Surgery: Open Versus Arthroscopic Versus Percutaneous Release of the Common Extensor Origin

PURPOSE

To compare complications, function, pain, and patient satisfaction after conventional open, percutaneous, or arthroscopic release of the extensor origin for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

METHODS

A thorough review of 4 databases-PubMed, EBSCOhost, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) Plus, and Scopus-was performed to identify all studies that addressed surgical management of lateral epicondylitis. We included (1) studies published between 2000 and 2015 and (2) studies with clearly defined surgical techniques. We excluded (1) non-English-language manuscripts, (2) isolated case reports, (3) studies with fewer than 10 subjects, (4) animal studies, (5) studies with additional adjunctive procedures aside from release of the extensor origin, (6) clinical or systematic review manuscripts, (7) studies with a follow-up period of 6 months or less, and (8) studies in which less than 80% of patients completed follow-up. Each study was analyzed for complication rates, functional outcomes, pain, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Thirty reports were identified that included 848 open, 578 arthroscopic, and 178 percutaneous releases. Patients within each release group had a similar age (46 years vs 46 years vs 48 years; P = .9 and P = .4, respectively), whereas there was a longer follow-up time in patients who underwent surgery by an open technique (49.4 months vs 42.6 months vs 23 months, P < .001). There were no differences in complication rates among these techniques (3.8% vs 2.9% vs 3.9%; P = .5 and P = .9, respectively). However, open techniques were correlated with higher surgical-site infection rates than arthroscopic techniques (0.7% vs 0%, P = .04). Mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores were substantially better with both open and arthroscopic techniques than with percutaneous release (19.9 points vs 21.3 points vs 29 points, P < .001). In addition, there was less pain reported in the arthroscopic and percutaneous release groups as opposed to their open counterparts (1.9 points vs 1.4 points vs 1.3 points, P < .0001). There were no differences among the techniques in patient satisfaction rate (93.7% vs 89% vs 88%; P = .08 and P = .07, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Functional outcomes of open and arthroscopic releases may be superior to those of percutaneous release. In addition, patients may report less pain with arthroscopic and percutaneous techniques. Although the risk of complications is similar regardless of technique, patients may be counseled that their risk of infectious complications may be slightly higher with open releases. However, it is important to note that this statistical difference may not necessarily portend noticeable clinical differences.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV evidence.

Outcomes of arthroscopic lateral epicondylitis release: Should we treat earlier?

BACKGROUND

When managed conservatively, lateral epicondylitis often subsides only after considerable time, during which social and occupational activities are severely disrupted. If conservative management fails, a recently introduced option is arthroscopic release of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB). The primary objective of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of this procedure according to preoperative symptom duration.

HYPOTHESIS

Earlier arthroscopic release is associated with better functional outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Consecutive patients with arthroscopically managed lateral epicondylitis were included in a retrospective study. Arthroscopy was performed only after at least 6 months of conservative treatment. The criteria to evaluate the clinical outcomes were the Nirschl and Quick-DASH scores, muscle strength, time to pain relief, and percentage of functional recovery.

RESULT

Thirty-five patients were evaluated at a median of 4 years (range: 1-12 years) after surgery. Mean preoperative symptom duration was 18 months (range: 6-106 months) with a mean sick leave duration of 2.3±4.9 months. Postoperatively, mean time to recovery was 37.5 days (range: 7 days to 5 years) and mean sick leave duration was 2.4±2.4 months. The mean Quick-DASH score was 15.9±19.1. The Nirschl score improved significantly, from 26.4±7.9 to 66.3±16.3. The initial muscle strength deficit was 10.1±33.2% and muscle strength at last follow-up was increased by 4.3±30.3%. Symptom duration showed no correlations with any of the clinical outcome measures.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes after arthroscopic release were not associated with symptom duration in this study. Nevertheless, the good clinical outcomes support treatment with arthroscopic release after only 6 months of conservative management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study.

Complications of Lateral Epicondylar Release

Reported complication rates are low for lateral epicondylitis management, but the anatomic complexity of the elbow allows for possible catastrophic complication. This review documents complications associated with lateral epicondylar release: 67 studies reporting outcomes of lateral epicondylar release with open, percutaneous, or arthroscopic methods were reviewed and 6 case reports on specific complications associated with the procedure are included. Overall complication rate was 3.3%. For open procedures it was 4.3%, percutaneous procedures 1.9%, and arthroscopic procedures 1.1%. In higher-level studies directly comparing modalities, the complication rates were 1.3%, 0%, and 1.2%, respectively.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: Tenotomy Versus Debridement

PURPOSE

To compare the outcome of 2 arthroscopic techniques for treating recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis.

METHODS

The study included patients undergoing arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis during 2 different time periods: April 2005 to October 2007 (tenotomy) and May 2009 to June 2010 (debridement). By using a patient-administered form, baseline information including QuickDASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) score (primary outcome), visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, and VAS of function was recorded prospectively. To have the same follow-up period of minimum 4 years in the 2 groups, the follow-up was conducted at 2 different points of time.

RESULTS

Of a total of 326 patients fulfilling the requirements for inclusion in the study, 283 patients (87%) were followed up (144 male and 139 female, median age 46 [21 to 65] years), 204 (87%) in the tenotomy group and 79 (88%) in the debridement group. In both groups, a significant improvement in the QuickDASH was found at the follow-up compared with baseline: from 60 to 12 in the debridement group (P < .001) and from 59 to 13 in the tenotomy group (P < .001). No statistically significant difference was found in baseline or follow-up QuickDASH, VAS of pain, VAS of function, or failure (reoperation) rate between the 2 groups. The mean length of sick leave was 2 weeks shorter in the debridement only group (P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

Both arthroscopic methods lead to a significant improvement of pain and function, and no statistically significant difference was found in any outcome parameters between the 2 techniques at this minimum 4-year evaluation. The results indicate that tenotomy of the extensor carpi radialis brevis may be an unnecessary step in the arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis Debridement only is a potentially less costly procedure, and the current finding of a mean 2 weeks shorter sick leave in the debridement only group proposes a substantial cost saving in a societal perspective.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Arthroscopic versus open tennis elbow release: 3- to 6-year results of a case-control series of 305 elbows

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of arthroscopic and open tendon release in tennis elbow (TE).

METHODS

We compared the outcome of patients treated by an open tendon release in the period from 2002 to 2005 (n = 80) with that of patients treated by an arthroscopic release of the extensor carpi radialis brevis in the period from 2005 to 2008 (n = 225). In both groups the inclusion criteria were symptomatic TE refractory to conservative care for a minimum of 6 months and a clinical follow-up of at least 3 years. The diagnosis was based on a typical history and positive clinical findings. Patients with previous surgery in the elbow, chondral or osteochondral lesions, osteoarthritis, or free bodies were excluded. To have a similar follow-up period in the 2 groups (median, 4 years), the follow-up was conducted at 2 different time points.

RESULTS

The groups did not differ significantly with regard to the age of the patients, distribution of gender, distribution of affected side, duration of symptoms, or baseline score on the short version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH). We did not observe any major complications. The failure rate was not significantly different between the 2 groups. At follow-up, the mean QuickDASH score was statistically significantly better (P = .004) in the arthroscopic group (11.6 points; SD, 15.6 points) compared with that in the open group (17.8 points; SD, 19.4 points). The percentage of elbows with an excellent outcome at follow-up (QuickDASH score <20 points) was significantly higher in the arthroscopic group (78%) than in the open group (67%) (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Both a traditional open approach and the newer arthroscopic method provide an effective treatment of recalcitrant TE without major complications. The arthroscopic method offers a small, but not insignificant, improvement in the outcome as evaluated by the QuickDASH score.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic case-control study.

[Arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a prospective study on 14 cases]

Lateral epicondylitis of the elbow is a relatively common pathology and would involve 1-3% of the overall population. Lack of consensus on surgical techniques reflects the difficulty of understanding and treating this disease. Our prospective study reports the results of its arthroscopic treatment on 14 patients operated on between 2009 and 2012. The mean follow-up was 7.15 months. All patients underwent a well conducted medical treatment for an average of 32.5 months. The operation was carried out under regional anesthesia in an outpatient. The technique included a time of joint exploration, joint capsulotomy and a transverse division of the pathological tendon of extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) and extensor digitorum communis (EDC). The value on the visual analogic scale (VAS) at rest and during exercise increased from 2.85 to 0.43 and from 7.71 to 2.43, respectively, then remained stable over time. Professional activity was resumed on average at 9.1 weeks. Neither intraoperative nor postoperative complications were found. No laxity was observed. The Mayo Clinic and DASH scores were significantly improved from 52.14 to 92.5 and from 54.11 to 9.7, respectively. Overall, we observed 11 very good and three good results. Although our prospective series has a few patients and limited follow-up, our results are better or similar than those reported in the literature on pain relief and functional recovery. In contrast, the average recovery of professional activity was longer. Elbow arthroscopy, less invasive than open procedures, and allowing further joint exploration, seems an excellent alternative technique in this indication.

Selective 360° percutaneous extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon release for tennis elbow: an experimental study

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to define in volunteers and cadavers the positions of structures at risk and the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) origin limits for sonographically guided percutaneous tendon release in tennis elbow.

METHODS

First, in volunteers, we used Doppler sonography to determine the position (danger zone) of the structures at risk (neurovascular bundle and radial collateral ligament) from the most lateral point of the epicondyle (point of entry). Second, in cadavers, we studied the footprint of the ECRB's origin for finally performing sonographically guided tendon release (1- to 2-mm incision) away from the danger zone. Efficacy was measured in terms of detachment ratios for the ECRB and safety as the absence of neurovascular bundle or radial collateral ligament injuries.

RESULTS

In 10 volunteers (20 elbows), the neurovascular bundle was located 18.1 mm or greater anteromedially from the point of entry. The neurovascular bundle was not in direct contact with the bone. In 13 formaldehyde-embalmed cadaver elbows, the distance between the origin of the ECRB and the radial collateral ligament was 0 mm or greater. The anterior origin of the ECRB did not contact the neurovascular bundle. The maximum attachment limits of the ECRB were at 15, 5, 15, and 16 mm from the point of entry (anterior, posterior, proximal, and distal margins, respectively). Average detachment ratios were excellent for anterior and distal margins and good for posterior and proximal margins, without neurovascular bundle or radial collateral ligament injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

This study determined a danger zone to avoid and an area of probability in which to enclose most of the ECRB's origin for sonographically guided percutaneous tendon release. A 360° ECRB detachment can be performed safely and effectively. Clinically, sonographically guided percutaneous tendon release should selectively target pathologic regions.

A review of modern management of lateral epicondylitis

Lateral epicondylitis, or tennis elbow, is the most common cause of elbow pain. This degenerative condition can manifest as an acute process lasting < 3 months or a chronic process often refractory to treatment. Symptom resolution occurs in 70% to 80% of patients within the first year. A "watch-and-wait" approach can be an appropriate treatment option, although physical therapy has been shown to be an effective first-line therapy. Corticosteroids, while providing relief of pain in the acute setting, may be detrimental to recovery in the long term. Platelet-rich plasma injections, although recently well publicized, have not been proven by well-controlled clinical trials to be effective therapy. For patients with symptoms refractory to conservative management, surgical intervention has shown to be a successful treatment modality.

Evidence-based indications for elbow arthroscopy

PURPOSE

The purpose was to review the literature on the outcomes of elbow arthroscopy and to make evidence-based recommendations for or against elbow arthroscopy for the treatment of various conditions. Our hypothesis was that the evidence would support the use of elbow arthroscopy in the management of common elbow conditions.

METHODS

A literature search was performed by use of the PubMed database in October 2010. All therapeutic studies investigating the results of treatment with elbow arthroscopy were analyzed for outcomes and complications. The literature specific to common elbow arthroscopy indications was summarized and was assigned a grade of recommendation based on the available evidence.

RESULTS

There is fair-quality evidence for elbow arthroscopy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis of the elbow and lateral epicondylitis (grade B recommendation). There is poor-quality evidence for, rather than against, the arthroscopic treatment of degenerative arthritis, osteochondritis dissecans, radial head resection, loose bodies, post-traumatic arthrofibrosis, posteromedial impingement, excision of a plica, and fractures of the capitellum, coronoid process, and radial head (grade C(f) recommendation). There is insufficient evidence to give a recommendation for or against the arthroscopic treatment of posterolateral rotatory instability and septic arthritis (grade I recommendation).

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence supports the use of elbow arthroscopy in the management of the majority of conditions where it is currently used. The quality of the evidence, however, is generally fair to poor.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.

Arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis: comparison of the outcome of ECRB release with and without decortication

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the early clinical results of arthroscopic extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) release with and without bone decortication in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-eight patients who were surgically treated for lateral epicondylitis between 2004 and 2008 were included in this retrospective review. Among these 38 patients, 19 underwent arthroscopic ECRB release and 19 patients underwent both ECRB release with decortication of the lateral epicondyle. Outcome measures included pain assessment measured by visual analog scale (VAS) preoperatively, on postoperative day one, at two and 4 weeks postoperatively, and at the final follow-up visit. Functional evaluation was made with the Mayo Elbow Performance Index and grip strength measurement.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent simple ECRB release had significantly less pain than patients who underwent ECRB release and decortication immediately postoperatively (p < 0.05). This group also showed a lower VAS score on exertion 2 weeks and 4 weeks after simple ECRB release (p < 0.05). The mean time taken to return to work was 24.2 ± 18.3 days in the group that underwent simple ECRB release and 39 ± 22.7 days in the group that underwent ECRB release with decortication (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic release of the ECRB is an effective method of treatment in patients with recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis. Decortication of the lateral epicondyle leads to increased pain postoperatively and did not improve clinical results.

Surgical treatment for lateral epicondylitis: a long-term follow-up of results

HYPOTHESIS

Since its first description, the pathology, natural history, and treatment of lateral epicondylitis have remained controversial. For patients in who conservative management fails, surgery remains an option. The optimal method of surgery remains debatable and is further confounded by a relative lack of long-term follow-up studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study describes a modification of the Nirschl surgical technique and presents its long-term results. Patients undergoing this open technique were reviewed by use of the Hospital for Special Surgery and Mayo elbow performance assessment tools, as well as having grip strength and subjective outcome recorded.

RESULTS

From June 1986 to December 2001, 158 consecutive patients (171 elbows) underwent surgery in a single-surgeon series. Of these patients, 137 (86.7%) were available for follow-up at a mean of 9.8 years. The mean age of the group was 42 years. Subjectively, the results were good to excellent in 94.6% of patients and in 92.6% to 94.0% of patients by use of the Hospital for Special Surgery and Mayo scores, respectively. No differences were noted in grip strength. No patient required revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This repeatable open technique offers excellent results with a low rate of complications at a mean follow-up of 9.8 years. These results compare favorably in terms of numbers followed up, length of follow-up, and outcome and offer strong evidence of its efficacy.

The emerging role of elbow arthroscopy in chronic use injuries and fracture care

Arthroscopy is emerging as an invaluable tool for diagnosing and treating elbow pathology. In addition to the advantages of less scarring, decreased risk of infection, less postoperative pain, and a more thorough visualization of the elbow joint, arthroscopy is particularly well suited to the treatment of athletes trying to minimize rehabilitation and inactivity. Indications for elbow arthroscopy now extend well beyond diagnosis and loose body removal, and include the treatment of impingement, arthritis, contractures, fragment stabilization for osteochondritis dessicans, and treatment of certain fractures. This article reviews the basic principles and techniques of elbow arthroscopy and their application to common sports-related conditions, such as valgus overload syndrome, medial collateral ligament insufficiency, and the various causes of lateral elbow pain. Newer applications of elbow arthroscopy in fracture care are addressed as well.

Functional outcomes after arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate surgical outcomes of arthroscopic débridement for lateral epicondylitis using a validated, patient-assessed scoring system as well as conventional outcome measures. We also wanted to identify potential predictive factors that may be associated with the outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 20 elbows in 18 patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis who underwent arthroscopic surgery were included. There were nine men and nine women with a mean age of 54 years (range 42-71 years). Operative treatment consisted of débridement of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) origin and resection of the radiocapitellar synovial plica interposed in the joint. Outcomes were assessed using a patient rating, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) elbow score, and the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. The average length of follow-up was 28 months (range 24-40 months).

RESULTS

After surgery, according to the patients' reports, 14 of 20 elbows were much better, and 6 elbows were better. A mean preoperative VAS pain score at rest of 3.9 points improved to 0.3 points (P < 0.0001), and that during activity improved from 7.8 points to 0.9 points (P < 0.0001). The mean preoperative JOA elbow score of 29 points was improved to 90 points (P < 0.0001). The mean postoperative DASH score was 10.6 (range 0-50). Absent of T2-weighted high signal focus of the ECRB origin on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (P = 0.02) and receiving public assistance (P = 0.01) were significantly associated with worse DASH scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic release was a satisfactory procedure for chronic lateral epicondylitis. Preoperative MRI of the ECRB origin and socioeconomic factors were significantly associated with postoperative residual symptoms evaluated with the DASH score.

Long-term follow-up of arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis

BACKGROUND

In a previously published report of the authors' arthroscopic technique of operative management of recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis, they demonstrated short-term success with the procedure in their patients.

HYPOTHESIS

Arthroscopic management of patients with lateral epicondylitis can produce clinical improvement and have successful long-term outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Forty patients (42 elbows) with lateral epicondylitis who had not responded to nonoperative management were treated with arthroscopic resection of pathologic tissue. Thirty of these patients (30 elbows) were located for extended follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 130 months (range, 106-173 months), patients were asked to use a numeric scale to rate their elbow pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (severe pain). Patients were also asked to rate their elbows according to the functional portion of the Mayo Clinic Elbow Performance Index.

RESULTS

The mean pain score at rest was 0; with activities of daily living, 1.0; and with work or sports, 1.9. The mean functional score was 11.7 out of a possible 12 points. No patient required further surgery or repeat injections after surgery. One patient continued to wear a counterforce brace with heavy activities. Twenty-three patients (77%) stated they were "much better," 6 patients (20%) stated they were "better," and 1 patient (3%) stated he was the same. Twenty-six patients (87%) were satisfied, and 28 patients (93%) stated they would have the surgery again if needed.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic removal of pathologic tendinosis tissue is a reliable treatment for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis. The early high rate of success in patients was maintained at long-term follow-up.