Long-term follow-up of open and endoscopic Hohmann procedures for lateral epicondylitis

A comparative meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of arthroscopic versus open surgery in patients with lateral epicondylitis

Background

Lateral epicondylitis frequently necessitates surgical management when non-surgical treatments are ineffective. Anecdotal evidence suggests comparable efficacy between arthroscopic and open surgical repair; however, it is limited by the scarcity of data. This meta-analysis compares between both procedures regarding functional recovery, pain intensity, complications, and return-to-work time.

Methods

A detailed systematic review and meta-analysis of research published until February 2024 were performed, comparing arthroscopic and open surgery methods for lateral epicondylitis. The studies were sourced from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The included studies examined outcomes such as functional recovery, pain intensity, complication rates, and time to return to work. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool for randomized studies and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies.

Results

The meta-analysis included 19 studies with a total of 20,409 participants. The analysis found no significant differences in postoperative Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores (Mean Difference [MD] = 0.06; 95 % Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.81 to 0.94; P = 0.89) or Mayo Elbow Performance Scores (MD = 0.31; 95 % CI: 2.33 to 2.95; P = 0.80) between the arthroscopic and open surgical methods. The rates of good-to-excellent recovery, surgical failures, and complications were similar across both techniques. Nevertheless, arthroscopic surgery was associated with a significantly shorter return-to-work period (MD = -1.64 months; 95 % CI: 2.60 to -0.68; P = 0.001) and a temporary increase in grip strength six months after surgery (MD = -1.50 kg; 95 % CI: 2.67 to -0.33; P = 0.012).

Conclusions

Arthroscopic and open release techniques for lateral epicondylitis provide similar functional outcomes and complication rates. However, arthroscopic surgery may allow for a quicker return to work, suggesting a potential advantage in the early postoperative period. These findings highlight the need for individualized surgical decision-making based on patient-specific factors and surgeon expertise.

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.

Modified arthroscopic tenotomy of the extensor carpi radialis brevis for refractory lateral epicondylitis: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Different arthroscopic techniques exist for managing the extensor carpi radials brevis (ECRB) when treating refractory lateral epicondylitis. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of a standard arthroscopic débridement with ECRB tendon release to an arthroscopic ECRB tenotomy distal to its insertion without débridement using a retrospective cohort study design.

METHODS

This study included patients underwent arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis during 2 different time periods: 2016-2019 (débridement) and 2019-2021 (modified tenotomy without débridement). Patients were assessed preoperatively and at the last follow-up with Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, Visual Analog Scale of pain.

RESULTS

A total of 69 patients completed the follow-up (38 in the débridement group and 31 in the tenotomy group). Patients in both groups showed significant improvements were found in MEPS, DASH, and Visual Analog Scale after surgery. Patients in the tenotomy group had higher MEPSs and reported less pain with a minimum 2 year follow-up after surgery. DASH scores between groups were similar at all time periods.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic modified tenotomy of the ECRB without débridement improves function and pain significantly for patients with refractory lateral epicondylitis, which is not inferior to arthroscopic débridement technique.

No Difference in Complication or Reoperation Rates Between Arthroscopic and Open Debridement for Lateral Epicondylitis: A National Database Study

PURPOSE

To compare complication rates and 5-year reoperation rates between open debridement (OD) and arthroscopic debridement (AD) for lateral epicondylitis.

METHODS

The PearlDiver MUExtr database (2010-2019) was reviewed for patients diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis (queried by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] codes) undergoing OD or AD of the common extensor tendon without repair (queried by Current Procedural Terminology codes). Patients were stratified into 2 cohorts: those who underwent AD and those who underwent OD. Nonoperative treatment modalities were reported for both groups within 1 year before index procedure. The rates of 90-day postoperative complications were compared, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for complications. The 5-year reoperation rates, using laterality-specific ICD-10 codes, were also compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

In total, 19,280 patients (OD = 17,139, AD = 2,141) were analyzed in this study. The most common nonoperative treatments for patients who underwent OD or AD were corticosteroid injections (49.5% vs 43.2%), physical therapy (24.8% vs 25.7%), bracing (2.8% vs 3.2%), and platelet-rich plasma injections (1.3% vs 1.0%). There were no significant differences in radial nerve injuries, hematomas, surgical site infections, wound dehiscence, and sepsis events between the 2 procedures (P = .50). The 5-year reoperation rate was not significantly different between the AD (5.0%) and OD (3.9%) cohorts (P = .10).

CONCLUSIONS

For lateral epicondylitis, both AD and OD of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (without repair) were found to have low rates of 90-day adverse events, with no significant differences between the 2 approaches. Similarly, the 5-year reoperation rate was low and not statistically different for those treated with OD or AD.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, cross-sectional study.

Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guidelines on the management of lateral epicondylitis of the humerus - Secondary publication

BACKGROUND

The guidelines presented herein provide recommendations for the management of patients with lateral epicondylitis of the humerus. These recommendations are endorsed by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) and Japan Elbow Society.

METHODS

The JOA lateral epicondylitis guideline committee revised the previous guidelines on the basis of the "Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014", which emphasized the importance of the balance between benefit and harm, and proposed a desirable method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan. These guidelines consist of 11 clinical questions (CQs), 9 background questions (BQs), and 3 future research questions (FRQs). For each CQ, outcomes from the literature were collected and evaluated systematically according to the adopted study design.

RESULTS

The committee proposed recommendations for each CQ by determining the level of evidence and assessing the consensus rate. Physical therapy was the best recommendation with the best evidence. The BQs and FRQs were answered by collecting evidence based on the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines presented herein were reviewed systematically, and recommendations were proposed for each CQ. These guidelines are expected to be widely used not only by surgeons or physicians but also by other healthcare providers, such as nurses, therapists, and athletic trainers.

A systematic review of elbow arthroscopy complications : Complications, risk factors, and safety tips

PURPOSE

To determine the complications from elbow arthroscopy for the past 16 years, and to summarize the most reported safety techniques and risk factors.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria included level I to IV evidence articles that were published after 2005 in the English language. Excluded were vet, paediatric, and cadaver studies. Open and arthroscopic-assisted elbow procedures were not included. Two online databases were comprehensively searched (PubMed and PMC) in April 2021. Relevant paper selection was conducted by two independent reviewers. MINORS score, demographic properties, indications, procedure type, complication rates, reoperation rates, reported risk factors, and safety techniques were recorded.

RESULTS

Fifty-two articles met the criteria and were included. No relevant level I to II evidence studies were discovered. The mean age ranged from 31 to 65 years. The average body mass indexes were between 26 and over 40 kg/m². There was a prevalence of male sex (from 50.2 to 79.2%). Most of the studies reported a minimum follow-up (range, 4 weeks-12 months). The most common arthroscopic procedure was debridement (up to 73% in Leong et al.'s study). The average MINORS score was 12 (range, 10-16). The total complications rate ranged from 1.5 to 11%, with a few studies reporting over 25%. Nerve injury rate was 1.26-7.5%. Re-operation rate ranged from none (100 procedures) to 11.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Elbow arthroscopy is a successful procedure with a low overall complications rate (from 1.5 to 11%), and a low nerve injury rate (from 1.26 to 7.5%). Risk factors include patient-related factors (obesity, female sex, age over 65 years, elevated blood sugar levels, hypercoagulable disorder, tobacco and alcohol use), preoperative elbow impairment/previous surgery, and periprocedural steroid injections. Our review discovered a re-operation rate of 2 to 18%.

Extracapsular subcutaneous endoscopic treatment for refractory lateral epicondylalgia: technique, retrospective results, and prognostic factors

Background

The extracapsular subcutaneous endoscopic treatment is a new and under-researched approach to the endoscopic treatment of refractory lateral epicondylalgia. We aimed to introduce the techniques of the method and the mid-long term clinical effects. Furthermore, we intended to identify demographic and surgical-related factors correlated with prognosis of extracapsular subcutaneous method.

Methods

Patients with a minimum of 6 months of conservative treatment for lateral epicondylalgia were recruited from March 2012 to July 2018. Key surgical techniques including microfracture and endoscopic suture were used. Visual analog scale (VAS), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and Disability of Arm (Shoulder and Hand, DASH) scores were used to evaluate clinical results. Univariable analysis and multivariable logistic regression were used to analyze effects of demographic characteristics and treatment techniques on prognosis.

Results

Seventy-eight patients were treated with modified subcutaneous extracapsular surgery. No serious complications such as neurovascular injury or infection occurred. Postoperative VAS, MEPS, and DASH scores significantly improved (P<0.001). Age was associated with prognosis regarding VAS score (P=0.023). Older age was an independent relevant factor for poor prognosis regarding VAS score (OR =0.914, 95% CI: 0.842–0.993, P=0.033), and microfracture during surgery related to poor prognosis for DASH score (OR =0.056, 95% CI: 0.004–0.783, P=0.032). Plaster fixation was an independent factor related to good prognosis regarding DASH score (OR =11.156, 95% CI: 1.009–123.363, P=0.049).

Conclusions

Extracapsular subcutaneous method of refractory lateral epicondylalgia has satisfactory and stable clinical results with high safety. Techniques of extracapsular method include debridement, microfracture, and tendon suture under endoscope. Young age, no microfracture, and postoperative plaster fixation were associated with good long-term prognosis.

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.

Open Versus Arthroscopic Treatment of Chronic Lateral Epicondylitis and Worker's Compensation

Purpose

To compare the short-term outcomes between arthroscopic and open procedures for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Because a significant portion of patients have worker’s compensation (WC), the outcomes in these subgroups were separately analyzed.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients who had surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis by a single surgeon from 2010 to 2017 was performed. Patients who were symptomatic after 9 months of conservative treatments including nonsteroidal medications, steroid injections, and physical therapy were offered surgical intervention. The type of surgery was selected after detailed consultation with the patient. Charts were reviewed for preoperative pain, grip strength as measured by dynamometer, smoking status, and WC status. Postoperative assessments included pain and grip strength at 6 weeks and time taken to return to full duty. Two groups were compared using unpaired t test and chi-squared tests. Results were compared with similar studies in the literature.

Results

The study included 30 patients in the arthroscopic debridement group and 42 patients in the open tenotomy and reinsertion group. Eighteen patients (25%) had WC. Compared with the open group, the arthroscopic group had earlier return to full duty (mean 7.13 weeks, confidence interval [CI] 6.21 to 8.05 versu mean of 12.22 weeks, CI 11.21 to 13.24; P < .001) and less time for complete pain relief (mean 7.4 weeks, CI 7.02 to 7.93 versus 9.5 , CI 8.68 to 10.44; P = .043). No difference was seen among the groups in terms of unfavorable outcome (persistent pain and recurrence of pain), JAMAR hand dynamometer score at 6 weeks, and visual analog score at 6 weeks. A total of 11 patients (15%) had unfavorable outcome. Incidence of unfavorable outcomes was more in patients with WC insurance (36% in WC versus 7% in non-WC; P = .023). No association was seen with smoking status. WC patients also had a longer time to return to full duty (16.68 weeks for WC versus 7.65 weeks for non-WC; P < .001) and a longer time to get complete pain relief (12.4 weeks for WC versus 7.5 weeks for non-WC; P < .001).

Conclusion

The arthroscopic technique offers advantages of earlier return to work and shorter recovery period along with additional advantages of joint inspection and ability to treat coexisting pathologies. WC patients had a longer time to return to full duty and time for complete pain relief.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

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.].

Comparison of arthroscopic debridement and open debridement in the management of lateral epicondylitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported that both arthroscopic debridement (AD) and open debridement (OD) of extensor carpi radialis brevis are effective in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Despite this, few studies have focused on the comparative outcomes of these 2 procedures. The aim of this study was to assess whether AD is superior to OD in managing lateral epicondylitis.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify relevant articles that were published in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases during January 2019. All studies comparing the efficacy of AD and OD in terms of failure rate, complication rate, and clinical outcome measures were included. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager.

RESULTS

Six clinical trials were included in the current meta-analysis. There was no significant difference with regard to disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand scores, visual analog scale, and failure rate. There was a statistically significant difference in surgical time in favor of the OD (mean difference [MD], -11.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], -12.45 to -10.44, I = 0%, P < .001). There was no significant difference of complication rate between the OD group (0.6%) and the AD group (1.0%) (MD, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.12-3.06; P = .55) CONCLUSION:: There was no significant difference between arthroscopic and open surgery with regards to failure rate, functional outcome score, and complication rate. The current meta-analysis found that arthroscopic surgery had a longer surgical time than open surgery for lateral epicondylitis.

Chronic lateral epicondylitis: challenges and solutions

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a significant source of pain and dysfunction resulting from repetitive gripping or wrist extension, radial deviation, and/or forearm supination. Although most cases are self-limiting over several years, controversy exists regarding the best treatment strategy for chronic LE. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), physical therapy (PT), shockwave therapy, and injections with corticosteroids or biologics are all conservative treatment options for LE. For refractory cases, surgical options include open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous techniques. In this review, the current evidence behind these treatment strategies is presented. The data demonstrate that NSAIDs, PT, bracing, and shockwave therapy provide limited benefit for treating LE. Biologics such as platelet-rich plasma and autologous whole-blood injections may be superior to steroid injections in the long-term management of LE. Although the initial results are promising, larger comparative studies on stem cell injections are needed. For refractory LE, open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous techniques are all highly effective, with no method seemingly superior over another. Arthroscopic and percutaneous approaches may result in faster recovery and earlier return to work.

Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Open Surgery Versus Arthroscopic Surgery for Chronic Refractory Lateral Epicondylitis of the Elbow

Numerous surgical options have been introduced for the treatment of chronic refractory lateral epicondylitis of the elbow, but it remains unclear which option is superior. The clinical outcomes of an open surgery group and an arthroscopic surgery group were evaluated, and the results of the 2 procedures were compared. From among patients with lateral epicondylitis refractory to 6 months of conservative treatment, 68 patients satisfying study criteria were recruited. Open surgery was performed in 34 cases (group 1), and arthroscopic surgery was performed in 34 cases (group 2). Compared with preoperatively, the 2 groups had significantly improved values for grip strength, range of motion, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score at 12 months postoperatively. Group 1 had significantly greater improvements in grip strength and visual analog scale pain score compared with group 2 (P=.048 vs P=.006). Group 2 had significantly greater (P=.045) improvement in pronation compared with group 1. Group 2 returned to work sooner than group 1. On the questionnaire regarding satisfaction with surgery 24 months postoperatively, 4 patients (12%) in group 2 reported dissatisfaction compared with no patients in group 1. Open surgery and arthroscopic surgery both yielded good clinical results. Nonetheless, for patients requiring muscle strength or having severe pain at work, open surgery would be more effective. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(4):237-247.].

Open release versus radiofrequency microtenotomy in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Optimal surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis remains uncertain. Recently, radiofrequency microtenotomy (RFMT) has been proposed as a suitable treatment. We compared RFMT with standard open release (OR) in this prospective randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

In total, 41 patients with symptoms for at least 6 months were randomized into two groups: 23 patients had RFMT and 18 had OR. Two patients from RFMT withdrew. Each patient underwent Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score, grip strength and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores pre-operatively and at 6 weeks. Pain and DASH scores were repeated at 6 months and 12 months.

RESULTS

NRS pain scores improved by 4.8 points for RFMT and by 3.9 points for OR. There was a significant improvement in both groups from pre-operative scores, although there was no statistically significant difference between the groups at 1 year. Grip strength improved by 31% in the RFMT group compared to 38% in OR. There was no significant difference between the initial and 6 weeks scores or between treatments. At 1 year, DASH was 39.8 points for RFMT and 24.4 points for OR. There was a significant improvement in both groups from pre-operative scores, although there was no statistically significant difference between the groups at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Both groups showed significant improvements and similar benefit to the patient. The results of the present study do not show any benefit of RFMT over the standard OR. As a result of the extra expense of RFMT, we therefore recommend that OR is offered as the standard surgical management.

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.

The Nirschl procedure versus arthroscopic extensor carpi radialis brevis débridement for lateral epicondylitis

BACKGROUND

The Nirschl technique and arthroscopic débridement are common surgical procedures for chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes following the use of these techniques to treat chronic lateral elbow tendinopathy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 59 elbows of 55 patients who did not improve after conservative treatment. Twenty-nine elbows of 26 patients were treated with the Nirschl procedure (Nirschl group), and 30 elbows of 29 patients were treated with arthroscopic débridement (arthroscopy group). Outcomes were assessed subjectively with the quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain in 3 domains (overall pain, pain at rest, and pain during hard work) and objectively with pain-free grip strength.

RESULTS

The Nirschl and arthroscopy groups showed significant improvements in subjective and objective outcomes at a mean of 28.5 months and 31 months, respectively (P <.05). No significant between-group differences were found in postoperative outcomes, including quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire scores; pain-free grip strength; and VAS scores for overall pain and pain at rest (P > .05). However, a small but significant difference was found in the postoperative VAS score for pain during hard work (1.6 ± 1.3 for Nirschl group vs 2.2 ± 2.0 for arthroscopy group, P = .042).

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques are comparable and highly effective for treating chronic recalcitrant lateral elbow tendinopathy. Although the Nirschl technique provides slightly superior pain relief during hard work, the effect size is very small and the difference does not appear to be clinically important.

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.

The Boyd-McLeod procedure for tennis elbow: mid- to long-term results

BACKGROUND

Tennis elbow is a common condition that usually responds to conservative measures. In refractory cases, surgical intervention is indicated. A plethora of surgical techniques have been described. We report the mid- to long-term outcomes of the Boyd-McLeod procedure for refractory tennis elbow.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis and current review of patients that had undergone the Boyd-McLeod procedure over a 12-year period was undertaken. Demographics, time to discharge, length of follow-up and outcome scores were collected.

RESULTS

Seventy patients underwent surgery. Mean time to discharge was 15.35 weeks, with 88% successful outcomes. Fifty-four patients were available for current follow-up at mean of 5.52 years (range 1.17 years to 11.49 years). Range of motion in all patients was unchanged. There were no revision procedures. Mean (SD) Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 90.85 (13.11), with 75.5% returning a good or excellent score and 24.5% a fair outcome. The mean (SD) Oxford Elbow Score was 44.04 (6.92); mean (SD) pain score was 89.5 (17.58); mean (SD) function score was 95.34 (9.59) and mean (SD) socio-psychological score was 91.50 (17.01). Overall, 83% of patients had an Oxford Elbow Score of 43 or greater, suggesting excellent outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

We show that the Boyd-McLeod procedure is an excellent option over both the short- and long-term for refractory tennis elbow.

Medium-Term Results After Treatment of Recalcitrant Lateral Epicondylitis: A Prospective, Randomized Study Comparing Open Release and Radiofrequency Microtenotomy

BACKGROUND

Recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis (elbow extensor-origin tendinosis) is a common cause of elbow pain with many treatment options. In the present study, the medium-term results after open release and radiofrequency microtenotomy are reported.

HYPOTHESIS

Microtenotomy would provide long-term pain relief that was as good as the open release method.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized trial.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients randomized to either open release or microtenotomy were assessed after 5 to 7 years. Clinical examination and dynamic infrared thermography (DIRT) of both elbows were performed preoperatively and at the medium-term follow-up. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of both elbows was performed at the medium-term follow-up.

RESULTS

Significant pain reduction was found using a visual analog scale (VAS) at the medium-term follow-up in both groups compared with the preoperative assessment (P < .005). The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) increased significantly in both groups (P < .01). The improvement in grip strength was not significant in either group. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of VAS, strength, and the MEPS. On the DIRT examinations, there were significantly fewer hot spots at the medium-term follow-up than preoperatively (P = .0067, both study groups together). The MRI examinations revealed grade II changes in the operated elbow in 1 patient in each group at the medium-term follow-up, while all the other MRI examinations revealed a normal tendon.

CONCLUSION

In this prospective, randomized trial with a medium-term follow-up, the results were similar after surgical release and microtenotomy in patients with recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis. The hypothesis was thus verified.

[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.

Elbow arthroscopy: review of the literature and case reports

Elbow arthroscopy, though described first in 1930s, gained popularity only in the last 3 decades. There has been a steady expansion in the clinical applications of elbow arthroscopy owing to the significant improvements in instrumentation and arthroscopic skills. The procedure which was mainly used for diagnostic purpose, loose body removals, and synovial biopsy has now become an important tool for managing elbow arthritis, stiff elbow, and trauma. However, this procedure has a higher incidence of neurological complications and hence case selection and surgeon's expertise are of utmost importance.

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 versus percutaneous release of common extensor origin for treatment of chronic tennis elbow

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis is a common orthopedic problem. Rest, activity modification, and conservative therapies are generally efficacious in relieving symptoms in the majority of patients; however, a small percentage of people will experience refractory pain and require surgical intervention to alleviate their discomfort. Surgical release of the common extensor origin can be done through an open, percutaneous, or arthroscopic approach.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective study includes 33 patients with chronic resistant lateral epicondylitis who had received conservative treatment including modification of activity and 2 injections of 80 mg of hydrocortisone, for more than 6 months, aiming to compare two different techniques of treatment. The first group included 14 patients with a mean age of 42 years treated by arthroscopic release of common extensor origin. The second group included 19 patients with a mean age of 48 years treated by percutaneous tenotomy. The mean follow up was 12 months for the arthroscopic group and 10 months for the percutaneous tenotomy group.

RESULTS

The results were evaluated according to the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and the visual analogue scale (VAS). In the first group (treated by arthroscopy), the average DASH score improved from 72 to 48 and the average VAS improved from 9.1 to 2. In the second group (treated by percutaneous tenotomy), the average DASH score improved from 70 to 50 and the average VAS improved from 9 to 2.1. Concerning patient satisfaction after surgery, in the first group 7 patients (50%) were pleased, 6 (42.85%) were satisfied and 1 case (7.14%) was not satisfied. In the second group, 7 patients (36.84%) were pleased, 10(52.63%) were satisfied and 2 cases (10.52%) were not satisfied.

CONCLUSION

Both arthroscopic and percutaneous release of the common extensor origin can be effective in treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis gives more favorable results than percutaneous tenotomy. Although technically more difficult than percutaneous tenotomy, arthroscopy has the advantage of visualization of the pathology and much better improvement of elbow functions.

Clinical follow-up of professional baseball players undergoing ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction using the new Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic overhead athlete shoulder and elbow score (KJOC Score)

BACKGROUND

There are no validated outcome measures consistently used in the literature to report results of ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction in overhead athletes.

HYPOTHESIS

The Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic Overhead Athlete Shoulder and Elbow score (KJOC score) will correlate with other validated scores for upper extremity assessment but will be more accurate in evaluating ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction outcomes in professional baseball players.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Fifty-five professional baseball players who underwent ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction were asked to complete the KJOC score, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, and the DASH sports module. Players were separated into 3 categories-(1) playing without pain, (2) playing with pain, and (3) not playing because of pain-and compared with 123 asymptomatic throwers. Pearson (parametric) and Spearman rank (nonparametric) correlations among the 3 systems were conducted to validate the KJOC score. Means across categories were compared using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and a threshold score separating categories 1 and 3 was determined using receiver operator characteristic discrimination analysis.

RESULTS

Significant correlations were found between the KJOC score and the DASH (-.693, P < .0001), and the DASH sports module (-0.804, P < .0001). Only the KJOC score was able to discriminate between categories 2 and 3, as well as category 1 and the uninjured population. In addition, the KJOC score was the most sensitive and accurate method of discriminating category 1 from category 3, with a threshold score of 81.3.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study validate the use of the KJOC score for evaluation of overhead athletes undergoing ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction. The KJOC score is the most sensitive score for detecting subtle changes in performance in the throwing athlete.

Are "knife and fork" good enough for day case surgery of resistant tennis elbow?

This observational retrospective study was performed on 22 consecutive patients treated surgically in a day surgery unit for resistant tennis elbow to ascertain the effectiveness of the "knife and fork" procedure. All patients had an unfavourable response to nonsurgical treatment lasting at least six months. A simple and inexpensive "knife and fork" technique yielded excellent results in 90.5% of patients and a high percentage (95.2%) of satisfied patients at an average follow-up of two years. There were no fair or poor results and no complications. We conclude that the "knife and fork" technique is a simple and dependable day case procedure. In the present National Health Service (NHS) era of tariff and "payment by results", this approach is more cost effective than an arthroscopic alternative.

Radiofrequency microtenotomy: a promising method for treatment of recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis

BACKGROUND

Recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis (elbow tendinosis) is a common cause of elbow pain. There are many forms of treatment, none being superior.

HYPOTHESIS

The main hypothesis tested in this study is that radiofrequency microtenotomy offers better results than the extensor tendon release and repair operation for elbow tendinosis, especially earlier recovery.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients were randomized into 2 treatment groups, extensor tendon release and repair, and microtenotomy. Dynamic infrared thermography (DIRT) was employed as an objective method to verify the diagnosis as well as to document the outcome 3 months after the surgical procedure.

RESULTS

Visual analog scale pain scores in the microtenotomy but not in the release group decreased significantly after 3 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference in pain scores between the 2 groups at 3, 6, and 12 weeks, and at 10 to 18 months. At 12 weeks, grip strength had improved significantly in the microtenotomy but not in the release group. The functional score was significantly increased in both groups. The DIRT group showed significant differences in epicondyle skin temperature between diseased and normal elbows both pre- and postoperatively. Abnormal DIRT images correlated well with elevated pain scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiofrequency microtenotomy provides a promising alternative to the release operation for elbow tendinosis. Dynamic infrared thermography provides a reliable, noninvasive, objective method for the diagnosis of elbow tendinosis, as well as for evaluation of the outcome following treatment.

Extra-articular arthroscopic lateral elbow release

We describe a unique extra-articular approach for arthroscopic lateral release for lateral epicondylitis. An arthroscopic extra-articular approach allows better direct visualization of diseased structures with a 30 degrees arthroscope and only requires a small hole in the joint capsule. The camera is placed into the joint through the middle anterolateral portal. The camera is then pulled back through a small rent in the capsule over the lateral radiocapitellar joint to provide an extra-articular view of the diseased structures. The shaver is then placed 1.5 cm proximal to the camera in a proximal anterolateral portal. Debridement of the common extensor fiber tendinosis and decortication of the lateral epicondyle are performed under direct visualization. This is different from the intra-articular technique, where visualization with the 30 degrees arthroscope is more difficult despite a large capsulotomy to aid visualization. The advantage of this extra-articular technique is 2-fold. First, the extra-articular viewing portal allows direct visualization of diseased structures, improving accuracy for debridement compared with an intra-articular viewing portal. The intra-articular technique uses the 30 degrees arthroscope to work around a corner after a large capsulectomy. The second advantage of the extra-articular viewing portal is that it only requires a small capsulotomy. The small capsulotomy decreases the risk of transient radial nerve palsy associated with a capsulectomy. The small capsulotomy also results in less fluid extravasation into the soft tissues. Less fluid extravasation decreases swelling and the risk of compartment syndrome.

Ten- to 14-year follow-up of the Nirschl surgical technique for lateral epicondylitis

BACKGROUND

Good to excellent short-term results have been reported for the surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis using various surgical techniques.

HYPOTHESIS

Surgical treatment for lateral epicondylitis using the mini-open Nirschl surgical technique will lead to durable results at long-term follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Records from 139 consecutive surgical procedures (130 patients) for lateral epicondylitis performed by 1 surgeon between 1991 and 1994 were retrospectively reviewed. Eighty-three patients (92 elbows) were available by telephone for a mean follow-up of 12.6 years (range, 10-14 years). Outcome measures included the Numeric Pain Intensity Scale, Nirschl and Verhaar tennis elbow-specific scoring systems, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons elbow form. Preoperative data were collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study group was 46 years (range, 23-70 years) with 45 men and 38 women. Eighty-seven of the procedures were primary, and 5 were revision tennis elbow surgeries. Concomitant procedures were performed in 30 patients including ulnar nerve release in 24 patients, medial tennis elbow procedures in 23 patients, shoulder arthroscopy in 2 patients, carpal tunnel release in 1 patient, and triceps debridement and osteophyte excision in 1 patient. The mean duration of preoperative symptoms was 2.2 years (range, 2 months to 10 years). The mean Nirschl tennis elbow score improved from 23.0 to 71.0, and the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved from 34.3 to 87.7 at a minimum of 10-year follow-up (P < .05). The Numeric Pain Intensity Scale pain score improved from 8.4 preoperatively to 2.1 (P < .05). Results were rated as excellent in 71 elbows, good in 6 elbows, fair in 9 elbows, and poor in 6 elbows by the Nirschl tennis elbow score. By the criteria of Verhaar et al, the results were excellent in 45 elbows, good in 32 elbows, fair in 8 elbows, and poor in 7 elbows. Eighty-four percent good to excellent results were achieved using both scoring systems. Ninety-two percent of the patients reported normal elbow range of motion. The overall improvement rate was 97%. Patient satisfaction averaged 8.9 of 10. Ninety-three percent of those available at a minimum of 10-year follow-up reported returning to their sports.

CONCLUSION

The mini-open Nirschl surgical technique with accurate resection of the tendinosis tissue remains highly successful in the long term.

Operative management of tennis elbow: a quantitative review

INTRODUCTION

The results of operative management of tennis elbow are varied, and the indications for surgery are not well codified. Many operative techniques are reported, but a clear consensus on whether a given surgical procedure is more effective over another is yet to be reached.

METHODS

We conducted a MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE search on all available scientific articles that reported the outcomes of surgery for lateral epicondylopathy. Keywords used were 'tennis elbow', 'lateral epicondylitis', 'lateral epicondylalgia', 'tendinopathy', 'tendonitis' and 'tendon'. Subheadings used were 'surgery', 'outcomes', 'pathology', 'physiology' and 'operation'. All relevant articles were retrieved. Each article was scored using the Coleman methodology score (CMS), a highly repeatable methodology score, by two independent reviewers, followed by data analysis.

RESULTS

The mean CMS for the 45 studies identified was 43 +/- 9 (of a possible 100 points), with 'number of patients', 'type of study', 'outcome criteria and assessment' and 'subject selection process' being the major low scorers. Also, there was no improvement in the CMS, and hence study design, over the years (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.45).

DISCUSSION

There is a dearth of quality evidence available to be able to advocate one operative technique over another.

CONCLUSION

We stress the need for well-designed adequately powered randomized controlled trials to be able to understand which of these operative techniques is really superior to the others.