PURPOSE: The long-term outcome of this new endoscopic technique was compared with that of the classical open Hohmann procedure. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: During 1992 and 1995, 37 patients were surgically treated with the Hohmann procedure after failed intensive conservative treatment. At an average of 92 months after the operation, 30 patients (81%) could be clinically re-examined and were evaluated with a standard questionnaire including the scores of Roles and Maudsley and Morrey et al. RESULTS: Twenty of these patients were treated endoscopically and 10 with the open technique. There were no differences in demographic data between the 2 groups. At follow-up in both groups, similar results were seen for the function of the elbow, the scores of Roles and Maudsley and Morrey et al., the subjective rating of pain and function of the elbow, and complication rate. The results in the score of Morrey showed an average scoring of 93.2 for the endoscopic group and 87.5 for the open group (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The endoscopic technique showed results comparable to the open technique and can therefore be recommended for wider surgical use so as to learn more details concerning possible complications and results of the new technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
PURPOSE: The long-term outcome of this new endoscopic technique was compared with that of the classical open Hohmann procedure. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: During 1992 and 1995, 37 patients were surgically treated with the Hohmann procedure after failed intensive conservative treatment. At an average of 92 months after the operation, 30 patients (81%) could be clinically re-examined and were evaluated with a standard questionnaire including the scores of Roles and Maudsley and Morrey et al. RESULTS: Twenty of these patients were treated endoscopically and 10 with the open technique. There were no differences in demographic data between the 2 groups. At follow-up in both groups, similar results were seen for the function of the elbow, the scores of Roles and Maudsley and Morrey et al., the subjective rating of pain and function of the elbow, and complication rate. The results in the score of Morrey showed an average scoring of 93.2 for the endoscopic group and 87.5 for the open group (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The endoscopic technique showed results comparable to the open technique and can therefore be recommended for wider surgical use so as to learn more details concerning possible complications and results of the new technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.