A comparative meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of arthroscopic versus open surgery in patients with lateral epicondylitis

IF 1.5 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Maher Ghandour , Diaa AL Salloum , Mohamad Houssein Jaber , Ghadi Abou Orm , Ali Ghosn , Sadek Jaber , Hicham Abd El Nour , Anthony Chalfoun , Tanios Dagher , Bashour Hanna
{"title":"A comparative meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of arthroscopic versus open surgery in patients with lateral epicondylitis","authors":"Maher Ghandour ,&nbsp;Diaa AL Salloum ,&nbsp;Mohamad Houssein Jaber ,&nbsp;Ghadi Abou Orm ,&nbsp;Ali Ghosn ,&nbsp;Sadek Jaber ,&nbsp;Hicham Abd El Nour ,&nbsp;Anthony Chalfoun ,&nbsp;Tanios Dagher ,&nbsp;Bashour Hanna","doi":"10.1016/j.jor.2024.07.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Lateral epicondylitis frequently necessitates surgical management when non-surgical treatments are ineffective. Anecdotal evidence suggests comparable efficacy between arthroscopic and open surgical repair; however, it is limited by the scarcity of data. This meta-analysis compares between both procedures regarding functional recovery, pain intensity, complications, and return-to-work time.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A detailed systematic review and meta-analysis of research published until February 2024 were performed, comparing arthroscopic and open surgery methods for lateral epicondylitis. The studies were sourced from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The included studies examined outcomes such as functional recovery, pain intensity, complication rates, and time to return to work. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool for randomized studies and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The meta-analysis included 19 studies with a total of 20,409 participants. The analysis found no significant differences in postoperative Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores (Mean Difference [MD] = 0.06; 95 % Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.81 to 0.94; P = 0.89) or Mayo Elbow Performance Scores (MD = 0.31; 95 % CI: 2.33 to 2.95; P = 0.80) between the arthroscopic and open surgical methods. The rates of good-to-excellent recovery, surgical failures, and complications were similar across both techniques. Nevertheless, arthroscopic surgery was associated with a significantly shorter return-to-work period (MD = −1.64 months; 95 % CI: 2.60 to −0.68; P = 0.001) and a temporary increase in grip strength six months after surgery (MD = −1.50 kg; 95 % CI: 2.67 to −0.33; P = 0.012).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Arthroscopic and open release techniques for lateral epicondylitis provide similar functional outcomes and complication rates. However, arthroscopic surgery may allow for a quicker return to work, suggesting a potential advantage in the early postoperative period. These findings highlight the need for individualized surgical decision-making based on patient-specific factors and surgeon expertise.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of orthopaedics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0972978X24002861/pdfft?md5=6befb8d2887833d66e3a2abc5095337e&pid=1-s2.0-S0972978X24002861-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0972978X24002861","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Lateral epicondylitis frequently necessitates surgical management when non-surgical treatments are ineffective. Anecdotal evidence suggests comparable efficacy between arthroscopic and open surgical repair; however, it is limited by the scarcity of data. This meta-analysis compares between both procedures regarding functional recovery, pain intensity, complications, and return-to-work time.

Methods

A detailed systematic review and meta-analysis of research published until February 2024 were performed, comparing arthroscopic and open surgery methods for lateral epicondylitis. The studies were sourced from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The included studies examined outcomes such as functional recovery, pain intensity, complication rates, and time to return to work. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool for randomized studies and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies.

Results

The meta-analysis included 19 studies with a total of 20,409 participants. The analysis found no significant differences in postoperative Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores (Mean Difference [MD] = 0.06; 95 % Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.81 to 0.94; P = 0.89) or Mayo Elbow Performance Scores (MD = 0.31; 95 % CI: 2.33 to 2.95; P = 0.80) between the arthroscopic and open surgical methods. The rates of good-to-excellent recovery, surgical failures, and complications were similar across both techniques. Nevertheless, arthroscopic surgery was associated with a significantly shorter return-to-work period (MD = −1.64 months; 95 % CI: 2.60 to −0.68; P = 0.001) and a temporary increase in grip strength six months after surgery (MD = −1.50 kg; 95 % CI: 2.67 to −0.33; P = 0.012).

Conclusions

Arthroscopic and open release techniques for lateral epicondylitis provide similar functional outcomes and complication rates. However, arthroscopic surgery may allow for a quicker return to work, suggesting a potential advantage in the early postoperative period. These findings highlight the need for individualized surgical decision-making based on patient-specific factors and surgeon expertise.

关节镜手术与开放手术在外侧上髁炎患者中的疗效和安全性对比分析
背景当非手术治疗无效时,外上髁炎常常需要手术治疗。轶事证据表明,关节镜手术修复和开放手术修复的疗效相当;但由于数据稀少,其疗效受到限制。本荟萃分析比较了两种手术在功能恢复、疼痛强度、并发症和重返工作岗位时间等方面的效果。方法对截至 2024 年 2 月发表的研究进行了详细的系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较了关节镜手术和开放手术治疗外侧上髁炎的方法。这些研究来自 PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、Cochrane Library 和 Google Scholar。纳入的研究对功能恢复、疼痛强度、并发症发生率和恢复工作时间等结果进行了检查。随机研究采用 Cochrane 工具评估偏倚风险,非随机研究采用 ROBINS-I 工具评估偏倚风险。分析发现,术后手臂、肩部和手部残疾(DASH)评分无明显差异(平均差异 [MD] = 0.06;95 % 置信区间 [CI]:0.81 至 0.94;95 % 置信区间 [CI]:0.81 至 0.94):关节镜手术法与开放手术法之间的平均差 [MD] = 0.06;95 % 置信区间 [CI]:0.81 至 0.94;P = 0.89)或梅奥肘关节功能评分(MD = 0.31;95 % 置信区间 [CI]:2.33 至 2.95;P = 0.80)。两种技术的良好到极佳恢复率、手术失败率和并发症发生率相似。然而,关节镜手术与重返工作岗位的时间明显缩短(MD = -1.64 个月;95 % CI:2.60 至 -0.68;P = 0.001)和术后 6 个月握力暂时增加(MD = -1.50 kg;95 % CI:2.67 至 -0.33;P = 0.012)相关。然而,关节镜手术可以更快地恢复工作,这表明它在术后早期具有潜在的优势。这些发现凸显了根据患者的具体因素和外科医生的专业知识做出个性化手术决策的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
202
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedics aims to be a leading journal in orthopaedics and contribute towards the improvement of quality of orthopedic health care. The journal publishes original research work and review articles related to different aspects of orthopaedics including Arthroplasty, Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, Trauma, Spine and Spinal deformities, Pediatric orthopaedics, limb reconstruction procedures, hand surgery, and orthopaedic oncology. It also publishes articles on continuing education, health-related information, case reports and letters to the editor. It is requested to note that the journal has an international readership and all submissions should be aimed at specifying something about the setting in which the work was conducted. Authors must also provide any specific reasons for the research and also provide an elaborate description of the results.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信