Complications of Lateral Epicondylar Release

The effectiveness of percutaneous ultrasound-guided needle tenotomy compared to alternative treatments for chronic tendinopathy: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To compare percutaneous ultrasound-guided needle tenotomy (PUNT) to alternative treatments for chronic tendinopathy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed with the following combination of keywords: ultrasound-guided, percutaneous, needling, tenotomy, Tenex, tendinopathy, and fasciotomy. Original studies comparing PUNT to alternative treatments for chronic tendinopathy were included in this systematic review.

RESULTS

Twelve (n = 12) studies with 481 subjects were included. Two (2/12) articles compared PUNT to surgical tenotomy and concluded that PUNT provides the same outcomes as surgical tenotomy. Six (6/12) studies compared PUNT to platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections, and two of them found both treatment modalities effective with no significant between-group differences. Three trials claimed that PUNT followed by PRP injections showed superior clinical outcomes compared to PUNT alone. However, the difference at long-term follow-up was statistically significant only in one of them. One study found PUNT superior to PUNT + PRP injection at short-term follow-up, although there were no between-group differences at long-term follow-up. Four (4/12) studies compared PUNT to steroid injection (SI) and showed that SI causes fast (2 weeks) but temporary pain relief, PUNT results in persistent but relatively slower improvement to SI, and the combined procedure has a more rapid and steady reduction in symptoms.

CONCLUSION

PUNT is an effective treatment technique for chronic tendinopathy and should be considered when non-invasive treatments have failed. Effects of PRP and SI are transient and dissipate over time and do not contribute to long-term outcome.

Functional recovery in the surgical treatment of tennis elbow: side-to-side vs. tendon-to-bone attachment using a knotless suture anchor: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis of the elbow sometimes does not respond to conservative treatment and requires surgical intervention. Many different surgical techniques have been described. The aim of this randomized study was to compare functional outcomes of open side-to-side suturing of the tendon and tendon-to-bone fixation with a knotless suture anchor.

METHODS

In total, 68 patients were included (4 were lost to follow-up) and were randomized into either the side-to-side tendon group or the suture anchor group. Demographic data consisted of age, sex, body mass index, affected arm, dominant arm, previous treatments, and symptom duration. Professional and sports activities were noted. Preoperative values of the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) score, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS) score were noted. Clinical features consisted of range of motion in flexion and extension, grip strength, and wrist flexion and extension strength. All measurements were noted at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

The MEPI and NRS scores did not differ between the 2 groups, but there was a significant improvement in the MEPI score at 6 weeks vs. preoperatively in both the suture group (from 70.6 to 87.4) and the anchor group (from 68 to 86.5). The NRS scores showed no difference at each time point in both groups. The QuickDASH and QuickDASH-Sport scores showed a faster improvement between 6 weeks and 3 months in the anchor group compared with the suture group. Grip and extension strength also showed a slightly faster improvement at 6 weeks postoperatively in the anchor group. No significant difference in the number of weeks required to return to work was found between the groups (10.4 weeks in both groups).

CONCLUSION

Our results of side-to-side tendon repair compared with bone-tendon interface restoration by a suture anchor showed no significant differences in functional outcomes. Patients who received a suture anchor did have faster rehabilitation at 6 weeks postoperatively in terms of both functional outcome scores and grip and wrist extension strength measures.

Open Debridement Alone Versus Open Debridement With Tendon Repair for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Comparison of Complications and 5-Year Reoperation Rates From a Large Insurance Database

Background

Open debridement (OD) of the extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon, both with and without repair to the lateral epicondyle, are effective treatments for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis. However, few comparative studies exist within the literature.

Purpose

To (1) compare the 5-year reoperation rates of patients who underwent OD alone versus OD with tendon repair (ODR) and (2) identify the 90-day adverse event rates, total same-day reimbursement amounts, and national usage trends for these 2 procedures from 2010 to 2019.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

The PearlDiver MUExtr database was reviewed for patients diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis who underwent OD alone and ODR or reattachment between January 2010 and December 2019. These patients were stratified into 2 cohorts: the OD cohort and ODR cohort. The 5-year reoperation rates were assessed and compared, and the incidence of 90-day postoperative complications and risk factors were identified. The number of ODs and ODRs performed each year and the mean same-day reimbursement amounts (in US$) for both procedures were assessed.

Results

Overall, 41,932 lateral epicondylitis patients who underwent debridement were identified, with 17,139 OD patients and 24,793 ODR patients. There were no significant changes in the proportion of OD versus ODR procedures performed during the study period (P = .18). A significantly higher incidence of hematoma was seen after OD compared with ODR (0.19% vs 0.12%; P = .04), but ODR had a significantly lower 5-year reoperation rate than OD (2.8% vs 3.9%; P = .006), with an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% and a number needed to treat of 91. Finally, ODR ($1683.17 ± $12.15) had a higher mean same-day reimbursement than OD ($1479.05 ± $15.78) (P = .001).

Conclusion

Both OD and ODR had low complication rates. The 5-year reoperation rates were low for both procedures, but they were significantly higher for OD. Over the 10-year study period, there were no significant changes in the relative percentages of OD versus ODR performed. ODR had a significantly higher mean same-day reimbursement.

Percutaneous microtenotomy using a microdebrider coblation wand for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis is one of the most common causes of elbow pain. Most patients recover with conservative treatments; however, some patients require surgical intervention. There are 3 common procedures offered: open tenotomy, arthroscopic tenotomy, and percutaneous microtenotomy. In comparison, percutaneous microtenotomy has been proven as a less invasive procedure to treat lateral epicondylitis. We reviewed the literature on the safety and efficacy of using a microdebrider coblation wand to treat lateral epicondylitis, and we compared its outcomes to open and arthroscopic tenotomy.

METHODS

A search was completed through PubMed Central, Google Scholar, EBSCO host, and Embase for studies that performed percutaneous microtenotomy with a microdebrider coblation wand to treat lateral epicondylitis. Studies were then screened to determine if they met inclusion and exclusion criteria and were reviewed for data analysis and potential risks of bias.

RESULTS

A total of 27 articles were identified and 9 articles (eight studies) met the inclusion criteria. Small sample sizes in the studies and heterogeneity of the methodology limited the capacity to carry out a meta-analysis. Percutaneous microtenotomy outcomes seem to be favorable for reduced pain, increased grip strength, and improved functional outcomes, which were similar to outcomes reported with the other surgical techniques. There were no major adverse events reported in the studies secondary to the use of the microdebrider coblation wand. Procedure time and return to daily activities were shorter for the microtenotomy group.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous microtenotomy performed with a microdebrider coblation seems to be an effective treatment for lateral epicondylitis that provides similar outcomes to the surgical techniques with a lower rate of complications.

Arthroscopic Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis Tenotomy and Debridement Versus Debridement Alone for Refractory Lateral Epicondylitis: Clinical and MRI Evaluation

Background:

Arthroscopic debridement of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) tendon is a widely accepted procedure used in refractory lateral epicondylitis. However, residual pain occurs in some patients.

Purpose:

To investigate the clinical effectiveness of arthroscopic extended debridement (ECRB tenotomy and debridement) in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Patients with refractory lateral epicondylitis were consecutively recruited for this study. They underwent traditional ECRB debridement (control group) or extended ECRB debridement (ED group) under arthroscopy. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) were used to compare elbow function between the groups at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was also performed to evaluate pathology at 12 months.

Results:

A total of 69 patients participated in the study (33 patients in the ED group and 36 in the control group). After surgery, all patients showed improvement on all 3 outcome scores. Compared with the control group, the ED group had significantly better postoperative MEPS and VAS scores at 3 months (P ≤ .001 for both) and 6 months (P ≤ .03 for both) but similar values at 12 months. DASH scores between groups were similar at all time periods. At the 12-month follow-up, no patients in the ED group reported pain with strenuous work. Return-to-work (RTW) times were also shorter in the ED group compared with the controls (8 ± 4 vs 18 ± 8 weeks; P < .001). Postoperative MRI assessments revealed no high signal intensities on the lateral epicondyle in the ED group, while there was an increased internal signal intensity on the lateral epicondyle in 83% of the controls.

Conclusion:

Collectively, the extended ECRB debridement technique resulted in enhanced pain relief in the early postoperative period as well as providing faster RTW times compared with the traditional debridement technique. At 1 year follow-up, there were no differences in outcome measures between groups, but residual abnormal MRI findings were more common in the traditional debridement group.

Arthroscopic surgery versus open surgery for lateral epicondylitis in an active work population: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis is common in workers who perform repetitive movements of the entire upper limb. Approximately 85%-90% of patients respond satisfactorily to conservative treatment, but in resistant patients, surgical treatment is considered. Classic open surgery is successful in between 70% and 97% of patients, similarly to more modern techniques such as arthroscopy. We sought to demonstrate the superiority of the Wolff technique in terms of clinical results. The goals of this study were to compare the functional and pain outcomes of arthroscopic surgery with open surgery using fasciotomy via the Wolff technique in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 47 working-age patients with resistant lateral epicondylitis: 27 underwent arthroscopic surgery and 20 underwent open surgery. Visual analog scale scores for pain and function, as well as the QuickDASH (short version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire) score, Mayo Elbow Performance Score, and Broberg and Morrey Rating System score, were collected preoperatively and postoperatively; return to patients' previous work and surgical time were also recorded.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in the reduction in the visual analog scale score (5.26 in arthroscopy group vs. 5.75 in fasciotomy group, P = .5), QuickDASH (short version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire) score (19 vs. 19.4, P = .9), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (82 vs. 81.5, P = .8), or Broberg and Morrey Rating System score (81.9 vs. 82.6, P = .9). The differences in terms of time off were also not statistically significant. The period of work leave corresponded, on average, to 83.78 days in the arthroscopy group and 89.95 days in the Wolff group. The mean surgical time was 44.2 minutes in the group undergoing arthroscopic intervention and 27.5 minutes in the fasciotomy group, showing a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic surgery and open surgery provide similar functional results and pain reduction in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

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.

A retrospective comparative study on arthroscopic suture anchors repair and tendon debridement versus arthroscopic tendon debridement for treatment of recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis

Aim

To compare the outcomes between the arthroscopic debridement of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) tendon alone and repairs to the ECRB tendon with suture anchor for the treatment of refractory lateral epicondylitis (LE).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed our patients who underwent arthroscopic surgical treatment for refractory LE by a single surgeon from January 2008 to June 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The visual analog scale (VAS), the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) scale, the Verhaar scoring system and the time of back to work were compared between two groups.

Results

Both groups showed a significant postoperative improvement regarding the VAS, MEPS, DASH, PRTEE and the Verhaar scoring system (p < 0.05). The repair group showed better results regarding the MEPS, DASH, PRTEE and Verhaar scoring system comparing with the debridement group, which were statically significant (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the VAS both at rest and activity at the final follow-up. There were no significant differences for the average time for return to work (p = 0.229). There were 11 patients in the debridement group and six patients in the repair group, who completed the MRI evaluation at 6 months postoperatively.

Conclusion

Compared with arthroscopic release and debridement of the ECRB tendon, arthroscopic suture anchor repairing of the origin of the ECRB tendon provides better outcomes when addressing the refractory LE.

Level of Evidence

Case Series: Level IV.

Lateral Epicondylitis-Narrative Review on Surgical Options for Recalcitrant Cases

PURPOSE

Lateral epicondylitis or lateral elbow tendinopathy is a common condition which needs to be addressed appropriately. This condition usually responds well to non-operative treatment. However, an orthopaedic physician needs to be aware of the recalcitrant cases and equip surgical armamentarium to provide adequate care.

METHODOLOGY

The literature search was performed on PubMed, Medline and Google scholar using the keywords Tennis elbow, recalcitrant, thorntons technique, surgical options, for this narrative review.

CONCLUSION

This article focuses on the causes for recalcitrant tendinopathy and review of its surgical options.

Management of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Narrative Literature Review

Lateral epicondylitis, also termed as "tennis elbow," is the most common cause of elbow pain and dysfunction, mainly resulting from repetitive gripping or wrist extension during various activities. The exact pathogenesis remains largely elusive with putative tendinosis, a symptomatic degenerative process of the local tendon. It is usually diagnosed by clinical examinations. Sometimes, additional imaging is required for a specific differential diagnosis. Although most cases can be self-healing, the optimal treatment strategy for chronic lateral epicondylitis remains controversial. This article presents a landscape of emerging evidence on lateral epicondylitis and focuses on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management, shedding light on the understandings and treatment for healthcare professionals.

Management of lateral epicondylitis

Lateral epicondylitis is the most common cause of lateral elbow pain. Although also known as tennis elbow, lateral epicondylitis often develops as a work-related condition and therefore constitutes a major public health issue. This article reviews the pathophysiological factors involved in lateral epicondylitis, as well as the tools available for establishing the diagnosis and ruling out other causes of lateral elbow pain. Finally, the non-operative and surgical treatment options are discussed in detail.

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.

Tennis elbow

Tennis elbow is the most common cause of lateral-sided elbow pain with a major socioeconomic impact. The etiology of tennis elbow is not completely understood, but there are many different treatment options. This review gives an overview of the current concepts of diagnosis and treatment of tennis elbow and the impact on work participation.

Semicircumferential Detachment of the Extensor Enthesis For Surgical Treatment of Chronic Lateral Epicondylitis: A Prospective Study

About 10% of patients with lateral epicondylitis are nonresponsive to conservative treatment; as controversy persists on etiology and pathogenesis of this pathology, there is no surgical technique universally approved. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the clinical outcomes of our technique consisting in a semicircumferential and partial detachment of the entire extensor apparatus enthesis. The technique was performed on 14 consecutive patients affected by painful chronic epicondylitis between January 2010 and April 2016. Two patients were lost during follow-up. At 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery patients were revaluated. Outcomes were assessed using Visual Analog Scale, DASH score (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), Jamar test, and time to return to work. The mean surgical time was 16 minutes. The postoperative outcomes were excellent in most patients as mean Visual Analog Scale score improved from 9.25 to 2.6 and mean DASH score improved from 82.9 to 29.6. No recurrence was recorded at 2 years of follow-up. The procedure is rapid to perform, reproducible and provides low complication rates and no relapse in our experience. As a result, we recommend this technique in nonresponding to conservative treatment lateral epicondylitis.

Open, Arthroscopic, and Percutaneous Surgical Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review

Background: Approximately 10% of patients with lateral epicondylitis go on to have surgical treatment; however, multiple surgical treatment options exist. The purpose of this study was to review the literature for the clinical outcomes of open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous treatment of lateral epicondylitis. The authors hypothesized that the clinical outcome of all 3 analyzed surgical treatments would be equivalent. Methods: A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar in July 2016 to compare the functional outcome, pain, grip strength, patient satisfaction, and return to work at 1-year follow-up for open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Results: Six studies (2 Level I and 4 Level II) including 179 elbows (83 treated open, 14 arthroscopic, 82 percutaneous) were analyzed. Three outcome measures (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand [DASH] score, visual analog scale [VAS], and patient satisfaction) were reported for more than one category of surgical technique. Of these, the authors noted no clinically significant differences between the techniques. Conclusions: This is the first systematic review looking at high-level evidence to compare open, percutaneous, and arthroscopic techniques for treating lateral epicondylitis. There are no clinically significant differences between the 3 surgical techniques (open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous) in terms of functional outcome (DASH), pain intensity (VAS), and patient satisfaction at 1-year follow-up.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection With Percutaneous Needling for Recalcitrant Lateral Epicondylitis: Comparison of Tenotomy and Fenestration Techniques

Background

Recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a common debilitating condition, with numerous treatment options of varying success. An injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been shown to improve LE, although it is unclear whether the method of needling used in conjunction with a PRP injection is of clinical importance.

Purpose

To determine whether percutaneous needle tenotomy is superior to percutaneous needle fenestration when each is combined with a PRP injection for the treatment of recalcitrant LE.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A total of 93 patients with recalcitrant LE were treated with a PRP injection and percutaneous needle fenestration (n = 45) or percutaneous needle tenotomy (n = 48) over a 5-year study interval. Preoperative patient data, including visual analog scale for pain (VAS-P), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) scores and grip strength, were obtained from a chart review and compared with postoperative values obtained prospectively. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of complications, need for additional interventions, return to work, and patient satisfaction.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 40 months, significant improvements in VAS-P (mean, -6.1; 95% CI, -6.8 to -5.5; P < .0001), QuickDASH (mean, -46; 95% CI, -52 to -40; P < .0001), and PRTEE (mean, -57; 95% CI, -64 to -50; P < .0001) scores and grip strength (mean, +6.1 kg; 95% CI, 4.9 to 7.3; P < .0001) were observed across the entire study cohort, with no significant differences noted between the fenestration and tenotomy groups. Nine of 45 patients (22%) underwent additional procedures to treat recurrent symptoms in the fenestration group compared with 5 of 48 patients (10%) in the tenotomy group (P = .05). No complications occurred in any patients, and no patients expressed dissatisfaction with their treatment course.

Conclusion

A PRP injection with concomitant percutaneous needling is an effective treatment for recalcitrant LE, with sustained improvements in pain, strength, and function demonstrated at a mean follow-up of longer than 3 years. Although the method of concomitant needling does not appear to have a significant effect on treatment outcomes, more aggressive needle tenotomy is less likely to require conversion to open tenotomy than needle fenestration in the short term to midterm.

Arthroscopic R-LCL plication for symptomatic minor instability of the lateral elbow (SMILE)

PURPOSE

Minor instability has been proposed as a possible aetiology of lateral elbow pain. This study presents the results of the arthroscopic plication of the radial component of the lateral collateral ligament (R-LCL) to reduce minor instability of the lateral elbow.

METHODS

Twenty-seven patients with recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis who had failed conservative therapy and who had no previous trauma or overt instability, were included. R-LCL plication was performed in the presence of at least one sign of lateral ligamentous patholaxity and one intra-articular abnormal finding. Single-assessment numeric evaluation (SANE), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), quickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, Hand), patient satisfaction and post-operative range of motion were evaluated.

RESULTS

SANE improved from a median of 30 [2-40] points pre-operatively to 90 [80-100] at final follow-up (p < 0.0001), and 96.3% patients obtained good or excellent subjective results. Post-operative median quickDASH was 9.1 [0-25] points and OES 42 [34-48]. Median post-operative flexion was 145°, and extension was 0°. Post-operative flexion was restrained in seven patients and extension in eight patients; 59% of patients reached full ROM at final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

R-LCL plication produces subjective satisfaction and positive clinical results in patients presenting with a symptomatic minor instability of the lateral elbow (SMILE) at 2-year median follow-up. A slight limitation in range of motion is a possible undesired consequence of this intervention.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case series, Level IV.

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.

Percutaneous Needle Tenotomy for the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the literature to determine whether controlled studies on percutaneous tenotomy have been published, and if so, to systematically assess the efficacy of percutaneous tenotomy for the treatment of tendinosis at the lateral epicondyle of the elbow.

DESIGN

Systematic review of the available literature.

METHODS

Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were searched in November 2015, unrestricted by date. After the initial search, we excluded conference proceedings, theses, reviews, expert opinions, and publications written in languages other than English. Next, 2 independent reviewers screened all of the remaining records with regard to their titles and abstracts, and subsequently, the full texts of identified publications potentially relevant to the present study.

RESULTS

Six articles focused on percutaneous tenotomy, none of which were controlled against a placebo or conservative treatment group. The absence of true randomized controlled trials created a great deal of heterogeneity between the studies; thus we could not include any of our studies in the intended final quantitative analysis with meta-analysis tools. We describe all 6 studies identified by this systematic review with a detailed analysis of the procedural methods, outcome measures, and conclusions of each study.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous tenotomy presents an alternative to surgical release of the common extensor tendon for the treatment of chronic tendinosis at the lateral epicondyle of the elbow. Current research supporting the efficacy of this procedure, however, is of low quality (level II to level IV).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.