Fabian Lanzerath1, Kilian Wegmann2, Michael Hackl2, Stephan Uschok2, Nadine Ott2, Lars P Müller2, Tim Leschinger2. 1. Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Street 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. fabian.lanzerath1@uk-koeln.de. 2. Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Street 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Stiffness after elbow injuries can severely limit daily life. If adequate conservative treatment does not result in satisfactory improvement of elbow function, surgical intervention should be considered. Whether an open or arthroscopic procedure is preferable is still a topic of debate and a systematic review of functional outcomes is lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically reviewed the available literature searching electronic databases, MEDLINE using the PubMed interface and EMBASE, for studies published between 2013 and 2021. Primary objective was to compare open and arthroscopic arthrolysis' functional outcomes, respectively, especially ROM and MEPS, as well as the accompanied complications. The PRISMA guidelines were applied. RESULTS: 27 studies comprising 1666 patients were included. 1059 patients (63.6%) were treated with open arthrolysis, and 607 patients (36.4%) were treated with arthroscopic arthrolysis. The results presented indicate satisfactory outcomes in open and arthroscopic arthrolysis with regard to functional outcome parameters. Treatment success, defined as excellent or good results according to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, among the patients treated with an open procedure was 88.8%; 6.3% required revision whereas 18.1% had complications without the need for revision surgery. Within the cohort of arthroscopically treated patients, treatment success was 91.8%. Revisions and complications without further surgical intervention were significantly less frequent than in the open cohort, at 1.6% and 9.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both open and arthroscopic arthrolysis provide good to excellent functional outcomes. Since the number of complications and revision increases with the invasiveness of the treatment, an arthroscopic procedure might be favored if feasible by indication. The role of forearm rotation and the use of a hinged external fixator remains of interest. STUDY DESIGN: Level IV; Systematic review.
INTRODUCTION: Stiffness after elbow injuries can severely limit daily life. If adequate conservative treatment does not result in satisfactory improvement of elbow function, surgical intervention should be considered. Whether an open or arthroscopic procedure is preferable is still a topic of debate and a systematic review of functional outcomes is lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically reviewed the available literature searching electronic databases, MEDLINE using the PubMed interface and EMBASE, for studies published between 2013 and 2021. Primary objective was to compare open and arthroscopic arthrolysis' functional outcomes, respectively, especially ROM and MEPS, as well as the accompanied complications. The PRISMA guidelines were applied. RESULTS: 27 studies comprising 1666 patients were included. 1059 patients (63.6%) were treated with open arthrolysis, and 607 patients (36.4%) were treated with arthroscopic arthrolysis. The results presented indicate satisfactory outcomes in open and arthroscopic arthrolysis with regard to functional outcome parameters. Treatment success, defined as excellent or good results according to the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, among the patients treated with an open procedure was 88.8%; 6.3% required revision whereas 18.1% had complications without the need for revision surgery. Within the cohort of arthroscopically treated patients, treatment success was 91.8%. Revisions and complications without further surgical intervention were significantly less frequent than in the open cohort, at 1.6% and 9.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both open and arthroscopic arthrolysis provide good to excellent functional outcomes. Since the number of complications and revision increases with the invasiveness of the treatment, an arthroscopic procedure might be favored if feasible by indication. The role of forearm rotation and the use of a hinged external fixator remains of interest. STUDY DESIGN: Level IV; Systematic review.
Authors: Dimitris G Vardakas; Sokratis E Varitimidis; Felix Goebel; Molly T Vogt; Dean G Sotereanos Journal: Hand Clin Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 1.907
Authors: Izaäk F Kodde; Jordy van Rijn; Michel P J van den Bekerom; Denise Eygendaal Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 3.019