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

Andrew J Riff, Bryan M Saltzman, Gregory Cvetanovich, Jonathan M Frank, Mohamad R Hemu, Robert W Wysocki
{"title":"Open vs Percutaneous vs Arthroscopic Surgical Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: An Updated Systematic Review.","authors":"Andrew J Riff,&nbsp;Bryan M Saltzman,&nbsp;Gregory Cvetanovich,&nbsp;Jonathan M Frank,&nbsp;Mohamad R Hemu,&nbsp;Robert W Wysocki","doi":"10.12788/ajo.2018.0043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":79316,"journal":{"name":"American journal of orthopedics (Belle Mead, N.J.)","volume":"47 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of orthopedics (Belle Mead, N.J.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12788/ajo.2018.0043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

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.

外侧上髁炎的切开、经皮、关节镜手术治疗:最新的系统综述。
本研究比较了开放、关节镜和经皮手术治疗外侧上髁炎的结果。我们在PubMed (MEDLINE)检索2004年1月1日至2015年5月23日发表的文献,关键词:外上髁炎and (surgery OR operative OR surgical OR open OR arthroscopic OR percutaneous)。采用双样本和双比例z检验对3项研究报告的结果进行meta分析。35项研究包括1640个肘部(1055个切开,401个关节镜下,184个经皮)符合纳入标准。两组之间在恢复工作的时间、并发症发生率或患者满意度方面没有差异。与关节镜组相比,开放组患者无疼痛的比例更高(70% vs 60%)。尽管在恢复工作和主观功能方面没有不同的技术,但我们推荐开放的髋关节置换术作为最有可能实现无痛结果的技术。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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