Clinical Review

Quality and Quantity of the Elbow Arthroscopy Literature: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Am J Orthop. 2016 July;45(5):E290-E298

The purpose of this article is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of elbow arthroscopy literature to answer the following questions: “Across the world, what demographic of patients are undergoing elbow arthroscopy, what are the most common indications for elbow arthroscopy, and how good is the evidence?”

The authors hypothesized that patients who undergo elbow arthroscopy will be chiefly age <40 years, the most common indication for elbow arthroscopy will be a release/débridement, and the evidence regarding elbow arthroscopy will be poor. Also, no significant differences will exist in elbow arthroscopy publications, subjects, outcomes, and techniques based on continent/country of publication.

A systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and performed with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using 3 publicly available databases. Therapeutic clinical outcome investigations reporting arthroscopic elbow outcomes with levels of evidence I-IV were eligible for inclusion. All study, subject, and surgical technique demographics were analyzed and compared between continents and countries. Statistics were calculated using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare between continents and Pearson’s correlation coefficients to evaluate changes over time.

In total, 112 studies were included (3093 subjects; 3168 elbows; 64% male; mean 34.9 ± 14.68 years. Mean 33.4 ± 26.02 months follow-up. Most studies were level IV evidence (94.6%) and had a low Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS) (mean 28.1 ± 8.06). From 1985 through 2013, the number of publications significantly increased with time (P = .004) in all continents. The 3 most common indications for elbow arthroscopy were osteochondritis dissecans (OCD), lateral epicondylitis, and release and débridement. The number of reported cases for the 3 most common indications significantly increased over time but did not differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases). Thirty-two studies (28.6%) reported clinical outcomes, the most common of which was the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, reported in 9.8% of studies. The quantity, but not the quality, of arthroscopic elbow publications has significantly increased over time. Most patients undergo elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis, OCD, and release and débridement. Pathology and indications do not appear to differ geographically with more men undergoing elbow arthroscopy than women.

PDF Download

References

1. Khanchandani P. Elbow arthroscopy: review of the literature and case reports. Case Rep Orthop. 2012;2012:478214.

2. Dodson CC, Nho SJ, Williams RJ 3rd, Altchek DW. Elbow arthroscopy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(10):574-585.

3. Takahara M, Mura N, Sasaki J, Harada M, Ogino T. Classification, treatment, and outcome of osteochondritis dissecans of the humeral capitellum. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(suppl 2 Pt 1):47-62.

4. Kelly EW, Morrey BF, O’Driscoll SW. Complications of elbow arthroscopy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(1):25-34.

5. Rajeev A, Pooley J. Lateral compartment cartilage changes and lateral elbow pain. Acta Orthop Belg. 2009;75(1):37-40.

6. Miyake J, Shimada K, Oka K, et al. Arthroscopic debridement in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the elbow, based on computer simulation. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(2):237-241.

7. Babaqi AA, Kotb MM, Said HG, AbdelHamid MM, ElKady HA, ElAssal MA. Short-term evaluation of arthroscopic management of tennis elbow; including resection of radio-capitellar capsular complex. J Orthop. 2014;11(2):82-86.

8. Gay DM, Raphael BS, Weiland AJ. Revision arthroscopic contracture release in the elbow resulting in an ulnar nerve transection: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(5):1246-1249.

9. Haapaniemi T, Berggren M, Adolfsson L. Complete transection of the median and radial nerves during arthroscopic release of post-traumatic elbow contracture. Arthroscopy. 1999;15(7):784-787.

10. Yeoh KM, King GJ, Faber KJ, Glazebrook MA, Athwal GS. Evidence-based indications for elbow arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(2):272-282.

11. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.

12. PROSPERO. International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews. The University of York CfRaDP-Iprosr-v. 2013 [cited 2014]. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. Accessed March 17, 2016.

13. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine - levels of evidence (March 2009). Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Web site. http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/. Accessed July 6, 2016.

14. Cowan J, Lozano-Calderόn S, Ring D. Quality of prospective controlled randomized trials. Analysis of trials of treatment for lateral epicondylitis as an example. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(8):1693-1699.

15. Jones GS, Savoie FH 3rd. Arthroscopic capsular release of flexion contractures (arthrofibrosis) of the elbow. Arthroscopy. 1993;9(3):277-283.

16. O’Brien MJ, Lee Murphy R, Savoie FH 3rd. A preliminary report of acute and subacute arthroscopic repair of the radial ulnohumeral ligament after elbow dislocation in the high-demand patient. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(6):679-687.

17. Rhyou IH, Kim KW. Is posterior synovial plica excision necessary for refractory lateral epicondylitis of the elbow? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):284-290.

18. Jerosch J, Schunck J. Arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis: indication, technique and early results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(4):379-382.

19. Tijssen M, van Cingel R, van Melick N, de Visser E. Patient-Reported Outcome questionnaires for hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of the psychometric evidence. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:117.

Although elbow arthroscopy was first described in the 1930s, it has become increasingly popular in the last 30 years.¹While initially considered as a tool for diagnosis and loose body removal, indications have expanded to include treatment of osteochondritis dissecans (OCD), treatment of lateral epicondylitis, fixation of fractures, and others.^2-5 Miyake and colleagues⁶ found a significant improvement in range of motion, both flexion and extension, and outcome scores when elbow arthroscopy was used to remove impinging osteophytes. Babaqi and colleagues⁷ found significant improvement in pain, satisfaction, and outcome scores in 31 patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis refractory to nonsurgical management. The technical difficulty of the procedure, lower frequency of pathology amenable to arthroscopic intervention, and potential neurovascular complications make the elbow less frequently evaluated with the arthroscope vs other joints, such as the knee and shoulder.^2,8,9

Geographic distribution of subjects undergoing elbow arthroscopy, the indications used, surgical techniques being performed, and their associated clinical outcomes have received little to no recognition in the peer-reviewed literature.10 Differences in the elbow arthroscopy literature include characteristics related to the patient (age, gender, hand dominance, duration of symptoms), study (level of evidence, number of subjects, number of participating centers, design), indication (lateral epicondylitis, loose bodies, olecranon osteophytes, OCD), surgical technique, and outcome. Evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines direct surgeons in clinical decision-making. Payers investigate the cost of surgical interventions and the value that surgery may provide, while following trends in different surgical techniques. Regulatory agencies and associations emphasize subjective patient-reported outcomes as the primary outcome measured in high-quality trials. Thus, in discussion of complex surgical interventions such as elbow arthroscopy, it is important to characterize the studies, subjects, and surgeries across the world to understand the geographic similarities and differences to optimize care in this clinical situation.

The goal of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of elbow arthroscopy literature to identify and compare the characteristics of the studies published, the subjects analyzed, and surgical techniques performed across continents and countries to answer these questions: “Across the world, what demographic of patients are undergoing elbow arthroscopy, what are the most common indications for elbow arthroscopy, and how good is the evidence?” The authors hypothesized that patients who undergo elbow arthroscopy will be largely age <40 years, the most common indication for elbow arthroscopy will be a release/débridement, and the evidence for elbow arthroscopy will be poor. Also, no significant differences will exist in elbow arthroscopy publications, subjects, outcomes, and techniques based on continent/country of publication.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.¹¹ Systematic review registration was performed using the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number, CRD42014010580; registration date, July 15, 2014).¹²Two study authors independently conducted the search on June 23, 2014 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm used was: (elbow) AND arthroscopy) NOT shoulder) NOT knee) NOT ankle) NOT wrist) NOT hip) NOT dog) NOT cadaver). English language Level I-IV evidence (2012 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine¹³) clinical studies were eligible for inclusion into this study. Abstracts were ineligible for inclusion. All references in selected studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if they were missed during the initial search. Duplicate subject publications within separate unique studies were not reported twice. The study with longer duration follow-up, higher level of evidence, greater number of subjects, or more detailed subject, surgical technique, or outcome reporting was retained for inclusion. Level V evidence reviews, expert opinion articles, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, open elbow surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded.

All included patients underwent elbow arthroscopy for either intra- or extra-articular elbow pathology (ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis, lateral epicondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic contracture, osteonecrosis of the capitellum or radial head, osteoid osteoma, and others). There was no minimum follow-up duration or rehabilitation requirement. The study and subject demographic parameters that we analyzed included year of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and elbows, elbow dominance, gender, age, body mass index, diagnoses treated, type of anesthesia (block or general), and surgical positioning. Postoperative splint application and pain management, and whether a continuous passive motion machine was used and whether a drain was placed were recorded. Clinical outcome scores were DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), Morrey score, MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance Score), Andrews-Carson score, Timmerman-Andrews score, LES (Liverpool Elbow Score), Tegner score, HSS (Hospital for Special Surgery Score), VAS (Visual Analog Scale), EFA (Elbow Functional Assessment), Short Form-12 (SF-12), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) Shoulder and Elbow Questionnaire, and MAESS (Modified Andrews Elbow Scoring System). Radiographs, computed tomography (CT), computed tomography arthrography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) data were extracted when available. Range of motion (flexion, extension, supination, and pronation) and grip strength data, both preoperative and postoperative, were extracted when available. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).¹⁴

Statistical Analysis

Study descriptive statistics were calculated. Continuous variable data were reported as weighted means ± weighted standard deviations. Categorical variable data were reported as frequencies with percentages. For all statistical analysis either measured and calculated from study data extraction or directly reported from the individual studies, P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were compared using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Where applicable, study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were also compared using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-test calculators with α .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups. To examine trends over time, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated. For the purposes of analysis, the indications of “osteoarthritis,” “arthrofibrosis,” “loose body removal,” “ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis causing stiffness,” “post-traumatic contracture/stiffness,” and “post-operative elbow contracture” were combined into the indication “release and débridement.” For the 3 most common indications for arthroscopy (OCD, lateral epicondylitis, and release and débridement) data were combined into 5-year increments to overcome the smaller sample size within each of these categories, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if number of reported cases covaried with year period. Within these 3 diagnoses, ANOVA analyses were performed to determine whether the number of cases differed between continents and countries.