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":"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","authors":"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","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":"{\"title\":\"A comparative meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of arthroscopic versus open surgery in patients with lateral epicondylitis\",\"authors\":\"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\",\"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}","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}
A comparative meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of arthroscopic versus open surgery in patients with lateral epicondylitis
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
