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

Management of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Narrative Literature Review

“…Good midterm outcomes in pain relief have been widely reported with a percutaneous surgical approach [9596]. However, Pierce et al [97] reported that arthroscopic and open techniques achieved a better prognosis than the percutaneous surgical approach for the treatment of LE.…”

“…Various studies have shown a lower complication rate of arthroscopic treatment than that of open and percutaneous approach [104][105][106]. However, recent systematic review studies reported a compromise result, demonstrating no differences among open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous surgical techniques for LE regarding the duration of return to work, complication rate, or patient satisfaction [97,106]. Although there are generally positive results, elbow arthroscopy is thought to have a demanding learning curve with potentially risks of damage to the radial nerve and the lateral ulnar collateral ligament [107][108][109].…”

Interventions for Treating Tennis Elbow: An Overview of Systematic Reviews in the Past Ten Years

“…The main characteristics of the included SRs were presented in table 2.Among the included studies, there were 15 in China and 22 in English, among which 2 in China were actually the same study.The one with the most complete description was chosen for evaluation.Twenty-nine of the studies included were randomized controlled trials, and 21 were assessed for bias using Cochrane's risk bias assessment tool.Seven was assessed using the Jadad scale, and three were assessed using the PEDro score.Ten literature was reviewed systematically, and 27 were meta-analyzed.Interventions, 12 articles used acupuncture, 4 using the shock wave therapy, 14 with non-surgical therapy, including platelet rich plasma, botulinum toxin injection, autologous blood injection, corticosteroid injections, etc.3 article adopting physical therapy, 4 by operation therapy.See Table 2 for full details. They all employed the PICO approach (population, intervention, control group, and outcome) as an organizing framework for establishing study questions.Most of the included studies adopted the elementary rule of PICO, including 5 non-random, cohort and case-control studies, and the rest were included in RCT.Only 1 article [54] provides protocol registration, and the rest do not provide protocol registration or publication before commencement of the review (AMSTAR2 Item 2).Two SRs [38,44] described the reasons for the type of included study, while none of the others described the reasons for the type of included study(AMSTAR2 Item 3).Only one review [48] had conducted a comprehensive literature search.One review [53] only retrieves one database, which is not inclusive enough(AMSTAR2 Item 4).In two reviews [41,44] authors had not performed study selection and data extraction in duplicate.None of the reviews provided a complete list of potential related studies and reasons for excluding each(AMSTAR2 Item 7).Thirty seven reviews partly provided characteristic information of their included studies.Three SRs [35,41,53] did not evaluate the risk of the included studies, while the rest of them evaluated the quality of the included literature with different scales.Three SRs [23,32,54] had reported funding sources for the included studies and whether there is a con ict of interest between the included studies, while the rest are not reported.Twelve reviews [22, 27-28, 29-30, 38-39, 41, 43, 45-47] applied meta-analytical methods appropriately, explaining factors for xed or random effects model selection and methods used for heterogeneity investigation.Eleven reviews [32,35,37,42,44,50,…”

Epicondilitis lateral. Manejo terapéutico

“…Con el avance de la artroscopia se han introducido nuevas técnicas para el tratamiento de esta patología, permitiendo realizar una cirugía mínimamente invasiva, menos agresiva, permitiendo tratar las patologías intraarticulares asociadas, si las hubiese. Actualmente, todavía existen pocos trabajos que comparen ambas técnicas (41)(42)(43)(44)(45) , siendo la tendencia a favor del tratamiento artroscópico, debido a sus mejores resultados funcionales, menor dolor postoperatorio y menor tasa de infección postoperatoria.…”