Clinical Review

Open vs Percutaneous vs Arthroscopic Surgical Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: An Updated Systematic Review

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data from all studies were pooled and descriptive statistics were reported as weighted mean ± weighted standard deviation for continuous variables and frequency with percentage for categorical variables. A meta-analysis was performed for all outcome measures that were reported in 3 or more studies within a specific treatment cohort. Data were analyzed using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-tests. Results were considered statistically significant at P < .05.

RESULTS

LITERATURE RESEARCH

Using the aforementioned search strategy, 154 studies were identified. Following application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 35 studies were included in the analysis (Figure 1). One study compared open and percutaneous techniques, and another compared arthroscopic and percutaneous techniques, rendering a total of 19 studies examining open surgical techniques for treatment of lateral epicondylitis,3-21 12 studies examining arthroscopic techniques,14,22-32 and 6 studies reporting percutaneous surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis29,33-37 (Table 2). There was1 level I study (3%), 6 level III studies (17%), and 28 level IV studies (80%).

Table 2. Study Demographic Data for Open, Arthroscopic, and Percutaneous Lateral Epicondylectomy

Open

Arthroscopic

Percutaneous

Total

Number of studies

19

12

6

35

Level of evidence

I

1 (5%)

0

0

1 (3%)

II

0

0

0

0

III

3 (16%)

4 (33%)

1 (17%)

6 (17%)

IV

15 (79%)

8 (67%)

5 (83%)

28 (80%)

US: International

8:12

3:9

1:5

12:24

Journals of publication

AJSM

3

1

1

5

JSES

2

2

1

5

Arthroscopy

2

2

0

3

KSSTA

1

2

0

3

CORR

0

2

0

2

JHS

0

1

0

1

JOS

1

1

0

2

AJO

2

0

0

2

Other

8

1

4

12

Abbreviations: AJO, The American Journal of Orthopedics; AJSM, American Journal of Sports Medicine; Arthroscopy, The Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery; CORR, Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research; JHS, Journal of Hand Surgery; JOS, Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery; JSES, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery; KSSTA, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, and Arthroscopy.

SUBJECT DEMOGRAPHICS

The 35 included studies comprised 1579 patients and 1640 elbows. Among these, 1055 (64%) elbows underwent open (O), 401 (25%) underwent arthroscopic (A), and 184 (11%) underwent percutaneous (P) treatment. The average age was 45.7 years, 47% of the patients were male, 43% were laborers, 31% had worker’s compensation claims, and the dominant extremity was involved in 62% of patients. The percutaneous cohort was older than the open cohort (P = 46.9, O = 45.4, A = 45.8; P = .036). The duration of symptoms was shorter in the percutaneous cohort than in the other 2 groups and shorter in the arthroscopic cohort than in the open cohort (P = 8 months, O = 23 months, A = 18 months; P < .001). There were no significant differences between groups regarding gender, occupation, worker’s compensation status, or involvement of the dominant extremity (Table 3).

Table 3. Subject Demographics for Open, Arthroscopic, and Percutaneous Groups

Open

Arthroscopic

Percutaneous

Subjects (N)

999

397

183

Elbows (N)

1055

401

184

Elbows with follow-up (%)

915 (87%)

350 (87%)

181 (98%)

Males (%)

427 (47%)

173 (49%)

78 (43%)

Females (%)

488 (53%)

177 (51%)

103 (57%)

Mean age (years)

45.4

45.8

46.9

Dominant elbow (%)

70%

69%

53%

Laborer (%)

56%

53%

48%

Work comp (%)

36%

30%

NR

Symptoms to operation (months)

23

18

8

Min. symptoms to operation (months)

6

6

3

Mean follow-up (months)

60

44

11

MATA-ANALYSIS CLINICAL OUTCOMES

Clinical outcome results were pooled for all studies reporting the same outcome measure for the same technique (open, arthroscopic, or percutaneous). A meta-analysis was performed for all outcome measures that were reported in a minimum of 3 studies utilizing the same surgical technique (Table 4).

PAIN RELIEF

Thirteen open studies,3,5,7,8,11-16,18,19,21 7 arthroscopic studies14,22-24,26,27,31 and 0 percutaneous studies reported the proportion of patients who were pain free at final follow-up. The proportion of patients who were pain free following open débridement was greater than that in the arthroscopic cohort (O = 70%, A = 60%; P = .009) (Table 4).

Continue to: Subjective improvement and satisfaction...

Pages

Recommended Reading

Reoperation Rates After Cartilage Restoration Procedures in the Knee: Analysis of a Large US Commercial Database
MDedge Surgery
An MRI Analysis of the Pelvis to Determine the Ideal Method for Ultrasound-Guided Bone Marrow Aspiration from the Iliac Crest
MDedge Surgery
Looking at Ourselves
MDedge Surgery
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation of the Distal Biceps Tendon
MDedge Surgery
Participation in Work and Sport Following Reverse and Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
MDedge Surgery
Radiographic Study of Humeral Stem in Shoulder Arthroplasty After Lesser Tuberosity Osteotomy or Subscapularis Tenotomy
MDedge Surgery
When Would a Metal-Backed Component Become Cost-Effective Over an All-Polyethylene Tibia in Total Knee Arthroplasty?
MDedge Surgery
Soft Tissue Reconstruction of the Proximal Tibiofibular Joint by Using Split Biceps Femoris Graft with 5-Year Clinical Follow-up
MDedge Surgery
Impact of Sagittal Rotation on Axial Glenoid Width Measurement in the Setting of Glenoid Bone Loss
MDedge Surgery
Multi-Modal Pain Control in Ambulatory Hand Surgery
MDedge Surgery