Tennis Elbow Repair With or Without Suture Anchors: A Randomized Clinical Trial

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.

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.

Editorial Commentary: For Surgical Treatment of Elbow Lateral Epicondylitis, Arthroscopic Treatment Is Recommended for Surgeons With Elbow Arthroscopy Training

Lateral epicondylitis is a commonly encountered and persistent problem in the active, middle-aged population, with a reported annual incidence as high as 3.4%. Lateral epicondylitis is often treated successfully with conservative measures but may necessitate surgical intervention in refractory cases. Most of the review literature has failed to definitively identify arthroscopic or open debridement as the superior surgical approach. We favor the arthroscopic approach because it allows for the examination and treatment of concomitant intra-articular pathologies, which may be underappreciated on magnetic resonance imaging, and for minimal disruption of the superficial extensors to access the pathologic structures. In addition, this approach often allows for a quick resolution of symptoms and expeditious return to work and sport with a low rate of complications or revisions. For surgeons who are not experienced in elbow arthroscopy, the option of open debridement remains a reasonable approach. However, our preferred management of surgically indicated tennis elbow is arthroscopic repair of the affected extensor tendons along with addressing any concomitant pathology, when present. In our opinion, this leads to optimized long-term outcomes.

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.

Validation of a novel magnetic resonance imaging classification and recommended treatment for lateral elbow tendinopathy

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis is one of the most common upper extremity problems presented to orthopedic surgeons. Despite a rapid and accurate arrival at a diagnosis by clinical examination, there exists no consensus classification for this condition, which hampers clinical approaches for treatment of the disease based on its severity. Thus, the aim of this study was to propose and valiadate a new magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) classification of lateral epicondylitis, staging by tendinosis, the degree of thickness tears of the common extensor tendon (CET) and bone bruise lesion.

METHOD

MRI assessment of the elbow of 75 patients (57 women and 18 men; mean age:51.4 years (range,34-73) from Jan 2014 to Jan 2021 who were diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis were included in the study. MR images were reviewed retrospectively by two independent upper extremities orthopedists and one musculoskeletal radiologist. Inter- and intra-observer reliabilities for the classification were calculated using kappa statistics for the analysis of interrater agreement. Correlation between the stage of the disease and the duration of symptom before MRI was calculated using Kruskal-wallis test.

RESULTS

Various degrees of CET lesions were demonstrated in this population (Stage I-17, IIA-7, IIB-22 and III-29). Intra-observer agreements of MRI staging were substantial to satisfactory. Inter-observer agreements were moderate to substantial. There was no significant correlation between the disease stage and the patient age or the duration of symptom before MRI.

CONCLUSION

Our MRI classification has emerged as one of the most reliable methods to define stages of chronic lateral epicondylitis. At the end, we have suggeted a clearer direction for understanding the disease pathology as well as an appropriate management protocol for each stage of the disease in line with the recent body of literature.

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.

Surgery for tennis elbow: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the most suitable treatment for tennis elbow but, in the USA, surgical intervention is increasing despite a lack of supportive research evidence. The aim of this systematic review was to provide a balanced update based on all relevant published randomized controlled trials conducted to date.

METHODS

An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI, AMED, PsycINFO, HBE, HMIC, PubMed, TRIP, Dynamed Plus and The Cochrane Library was complemented by hand searching. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and data were synthesized narratively, based on levels of evidence, as a result of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twelve studies of poor methodological quality were included. The available data suggest that surgical interventions for tennis elbow are no more effective than nonsurgical and sham interventions. Surgical technique modifications may enhance effectiveness compared to traditional methods but have not been tested against a placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Current research evidence suggests that surgery for tennis elbow is no more effective than nonsurgical treatment based on evidence with significant methodological limitations. Given the recalcitrant nature of tennis elbow for some patients, further research in the form of a high-quality placebo-controlled surgical trial with an additional conservative arm is required to usefully inform clinical practice.

Trends in Surgical Practices for Lateral Epicondylitis Among Newly Trained Orthopaedic Surgeons

Background:

Much controversy exists regarding the optimal surgical intervention for lateral epicondylitis because of a multitude of options available and the lack of comparative studies. Knowledge of the current practice trends would help guide the design of comparative studies needed to determine which surgical technique results in the best outcome.

Purpose:

To review the latest practice trends for the surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis among newly trained surgeons in the United States utilizing the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) database.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

The ABOS database was utilized to identify surgical cases for lateral epicondylitis submitted by Part II board certification examination candidates from 2004 through 2013. Inclusion criteria were predetermined using a combination of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Cases were organized by open and arthroscopic treatment groups and by fellowship training and were analyzed to determine differences in surgical techniques, complication rates, and concomitant procedures.

Results:

In total, 1150 surgeons submitted 2106 surgical cases for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. The number of surgical cases for lateral epicondylitis performed per 10,000 submitted cases significantly decreased from 26.7 in 2004 to 21.1 in 2013 (P = .002). Among all cases, 92.2% were open and 7.8% were arthroscopic, with no change in the incidence of arthroscopic surgeries over the study period. Shoulder and elbow (18.1%) and sports medicine (11.4%) surgeons were more likely to perform surgery arthroscopically compared with hand surgeons (6.1%) (P < .001). There was no difference in overall self-reported complication rates between open (4.4%) and arthroscopic (5.5%) procedures (P = .666). Percutaneous tenotomy, debridement only, and debridement with tendon repair comprised 6.4%, 46.3%, and 47.3% of open treatment, respectively. Sports medicine, hand, and shoulder and elbow surgeons were more likely to repair the tendon after debridement compared with other surgeons, who were more likely to perform debridement alone (P < .001). Hand surgeons were most likely to perform concomitant procedures, of which the majority were neuroplasties.

Conclusion:

Although comparative studies are ultimately necessary for determining the optimal surgical technique, researchers should be mindful of the differences in practices according to training and the extent to which concomitant procedures are being performed, as both these factors may confound any future results.