Clinical Review

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

Author and Disclosure Information

TAKE-HOME POINTS

  • While favorable results have been reported for open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous surgical techniques, there is no current consensus regarding the optimal technique for lateral epicondylitis.
  • There is no difference between open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous surgical treatment for lateral epicondylitis regarding return to work and subjective satisfaction.
  • Open treatment led to a greater percentage of patients being pain free at final follow-up.
  • While arthroscopic treatment led to better pain and functional scores at final follow-up, the absolute differences were quite small and likely not clinically significant.
  • We recommend open débridement as the best means of minimizing cost and achieving a pain-free outcome in the long-term.


 

References

ABSTRACT

This study was performed to compare outcomes of open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous surgical techniques for lateral epicondylitis. We searched PubMed (MEDLINE) for literature published between January 1, 2004 and May 23, 2015 using these key words: lateral epicondylitis AND (surgery OR operative OR surgical OR open OR arthroscopic OR percutaneous). Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes reported in 3 studies using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-tests. Thirty-five studies including 1640 elbows (1055 open, 401 arthroscopic, 184 percutaneous) met the inclusion criteria. There were no differences between groups regarding duration to return to work, complication rate, or patient satisfaction. A greater proportion of patients were pain free in the open group than in the arthroscopic group (70% vs 60%). Despite the absence of a difference among techniques regarding return to work and subjective function, we recommend open débridement as the technique most likely to achieve a pain-free outcome.

Continue to: Lateral epicondylitis affects...

Pages

Next Article: