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.
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.
Authors: Jay Moran; Stephen M Gillinov; Christopher A Schneble; Andrew E Jimenez; Ravi Vaswani; Joshua I Mathew; Joseph E Manzi; Allen D Nicholson; Theodore A Blaine; David W Altchek; Lawrence V Gulotta; Joshua S Dines Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2022-09-02