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

López-Alameda, S.; Varillas‐Delgado, David; Felipe-Gallego, Juan De; González-Granados, María Gabriela; Hernández-Castillejo, Luis Enrique; Lucas, F. García-de

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2021.11.017

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 6 In the current study, the average improvement in qDASH scores was 27.1 In a retrospective study, López-Alameda et al. 7 demonstrated no significant difference in qDASH score improvement between open and arthroscopically treated lateral epicondylitis (19.4 vs 19, respectively). Patel et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 39%

Small-Bore Needle Arthroscopic Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis Release Results in Improved Outcomes at One Year Postoperatively

Voort¹,

Saad²,

Falgout³

et al. 2023

Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 39%

Small-Bore Needle Arthroscopic Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis Release Results in Improved Outcomes at One Year Postoperatively

Voort¹,

Saad²,

Falgout³

et al. 2023

Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, the function scores including VAS, MEPS, and DASH scores, and ROM of the elbow had similar outcomes among the non-, pre-and intra-operative ultrasound groups at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The use of elbow arthroscopy for related elbow joint procedures has continued to increase over time, necessitating a greater assessment of the associated complications after elbow arthroscopy [21][22][23]. Jinnah et al [11] reported that 222 nerve injuries occurred in 372 respondents; ulnar, radial, and posterior interosseous nerve injuries occurred in 38%, 22%, and 19% of the patients, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of ultrasound in avoiding radial nerve injury during elbow arthroscopy: a retrospective follow-up study

Wang

et al. 2022

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A safe and effective technique for anterolateral portal placement in elbow arthroscopy is significant. We compared the outcomes of patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy using different ultrasound-assisted techniques. Methods From May 2016 to June 2021 a retrospective analysis on all patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy in our department was performed. Patients were separated into three groups: non-ultrasound; preoperative ultrasound; and intraoperative ultrasound. The minimum follow-up period was 1 year. Nerve injuries, visual analog scale (VAS), Mayo elbow-performance score (MEPS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH), and range of motion (ROM) of the elbow were evaluated for comparison among the three groups pre- and post-operatively. Results All 55 patients completed a 1-year follow-up: non-ultrasound (n = 20); preoperative ultrasound (n = 17); and intraoperative ultrasound (n = 18). There were 3 cases (15.0%) of transient radial nerve palsy in the non-ultrasound group. No nerve complications occurred in preoperative ultrasound and intraoperative ultrasound groups. The probability of postoperative radial nerve injury in the three groups was statistically different (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the VAS score, MEPS, DASH score, and ROM among the three groups at the follow-up evaluation (P > 0.05). Conclusion Performing anterolateral portal placement during elbow arthroscopy with ultrasound-assisted techniques successfully avoided radial nerve injury.

show abstract

“…Recently, arthroscopic treatment gained increasing popularity as a less invasive alternative of traditional open surgery. The elbow arthroscopy has been applied in several elbow pathologies including medial and lateral epicondylitis, primary/posttraumatic osteoarthritis, impingement, loose body, osteochondritis dissecans of the humeral capitellum and elbow instability 18–21 . Similar as the open technique, arthroscopic extensor release and/or debridement also became a more and more popular and accepted technique for the management of TE with increasing number of literatures comparing the clinical outcome of open and arthroscopic approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The elbow arthroscopy has been applied in several elbow pathologies including medial and lateral epicondylitis, primary/posttraumatic osteoarthritis, impingement, loose body, osteochondritis dissecans of the humeral capitellum and elbow instability. 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 Similar as the open technique, arthroscopic extensor release and/or debridement also became a more and more popular and accepted technique for the management of TE with increasing number of literatures comparing the clinical outcome of open and arthroscopic approach. The advantages of the arthroscopic technique had been reported by various studies and reviews, including better visualization and assessment of the joint, a faster and earlier rehabilitation, lower complications rate, and patients' preference compared with open technique when both techniques can be indicated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is There any Difference in Clinical Outcome between Open and Arthroscopic Treatment for Tennis Elbow? A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Guo

et al. 2022

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is considerable controversy regarding the optimal approach (open vs arthroscopic) of releasing and/or debridement for the treatment of tennis elbow (TE). The aim of this study was to determine the clinical outcomes of the two techniques by quantitatively synthesizing outcome data. The study was performed by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and Elsevier databases between January 1995 and April 2022 for a minimum follow‐up of 6 months. The searching strategy was “(tennis elbow [Title/Abstract] OR lateral epicondylitis [Title/Abstract]) AND (open [Title/Abstract] OR arthroscopic [Title/Abstract] OR release [Title/Abstract] OR debridement [Title/Abstract] OR surgery [Title/Abstract])”. The quality of each study was investigated using the Coleman Methodology Score. In total, 1411 (693 open, 718 arthroscopic) elbows in 1392 patients who underwent releasing and debridement for tennis elbow were identified. The mean Coleman Methodology Score for the included studies was 55.2 ± 8.6 (open: 55.0 ± 9.4, arthroscopic: 55.8 ± 8.2). Improved clinical results were achieved after treatment with either open or arthroscopic treatment. The surgical success rate was 95.6% in open surgery and 92.4% in arthroscopic management. The complication rates were 2.2% and 1.5% for open and arthroscopic procedures, respectively. Similar subjective and objective outcomes, and surgical success rate were observed in patients with both techniques. Patients who had undergone arthroscopic release seemed to return to work earlier (5.3 weeks vs 7.1 weeks). To draw more definite conclusions, high‐quality long‐term follow‐up randomized controlled trials are needed.

show abstract

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

Cited by 10 publications

References 26 publications

Small-Bore Needle Arthroscopic Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis Release Results in Improved Outcomes at One Year Postoperatively

Small-Bore Needle Arthroscopic Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis Release Results in Improved Outcomes at One Year Postoperatively

Application of ultrasound in avoiding radial nerve injury during elbow arthroscopy: a retrospective follow-up study

Is There any Difference in Clinical Outcome between Open and Arthroscopic Treatment for Tennis Elbow? A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About