Controversies in Surgical Management of Recalcitrant Enthesopathy of the Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis

Recalcitrant Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review on Current Nonoperative and Operative Treatment Modalities

BACKGROUND

Lateral epicondylitis is a common cause of elbow pain that is generally self-limiting. For patients who have persistent symptoms refractory to conservative treatment, there is still no clear consensus on the most favorable treatment modality. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the available literature regarding both nonoperative and operative treatment modalities for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis (RLE) to provide insight into the efficacy of treatment options.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, where the PubMed, MEDLINE/Ovid, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were queried to identify studies evaluating treatment options for RLE.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies with 1,958 patients were included. Of the reviewed studies, there were a wide variety of treatments including platelet-rich plasma injections, percutaneous tenotomies, and various arthroscopic and open procedures.

CONCLUSION

There are a wide variety of treatment modalities available for RLE that have promising efficacy in the short, medium, and long terms. A comprehensive approach combining evidence-based and patient-centered care is critical for effective management of refractory symptoms.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Conservative Management of Lateral Epicondylalgia: A Review

A common overuse injury to the elbow is called tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis (LE). LE is a condition that causes substantial discomfort and dysfunction in the upper extremity. Thermal and electrical agents are examples of conservative techniques. It is a significant public health concern since it frequently occurs due to occupation. It also happens in recurrent upper extremity motions including desktop use, weight training, forceful forearm movements, and repetitive vibratory movements, which are the most common activities performed by an engineer. LE leads to lateral epicondylar pain, which is irritating due to inflammation of the extensor muscle origin, and also activities of daily living are restricted. It is not only seen in players with racquet sports but then most of the males and females are affected in the fourth and fifth decades, leading to limitations in daily work, activity, and household work. Rehabilitation seems the most effective treatment yet in acute and chronic conditions if later the pain does not subside then rest, injectables, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the options to be taken. Physiotherapeutic rehabilitation plays a significant role in LE.

Lateral Epicondylitis: Treatment Preferences from the Potential Patient Perspective

Background

Knowing the questions and concerns that patients have regarding treatment options for lateral epicondylitis may allow for shared-decision making and potentially superior patient outcomes and satisfaction. In the present study, we aimed to further delineate patient preferences with treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

Methods

An online, survey-based, descriptive study was conducted through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Survey participants were presented with a clinical scenario regarding lateral epicondylitis and asked four questions regarding treatment preferences for nonoperative treatment, whether they would consider platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection, and whether they would consider surgical intervention for recalcitrant symptoms. A Likert scale was used for responses. McNemar chi-square test was used for paired nominal data for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 238 survey responses were included. A majority (63%) of respondents elected to proceed with formal physical therapy. When given additional information regarding corticosteroid injections, 50.8% of respondents reported preferring physical therapy. There were no differences between groups for questions 1 and 2 (P = 0.90). Of the respondents, 75.2% were "likely" or "extremely likely" to consider PRP injection. When asked about surgical intervention, 74.8% of respondents were "likely" or "extremely likely" to proceed with continued symptoms.

Conclusions

It is important to include patient preferences in treatment discussions of lateral epicondylitis. Survey respondents preferred formal physical therapy for initial treatment. A surprising majority of respondents were likely to consider a PRP injection. With prolonged symptoms, respondents were interested in discussions of surgical intervention and thus, it should continue to be offered to patients with recalcitrant symptoms.

Failed surgical treatment for lateral epicondylitis: literature review and treatment considerations for successful outcomes

Background

Lateral epicondylitis is a common cause of elbow pain in the general population. It is recognized as a degenerative tendinopathy of the common extensor origin believed to be multifactorial, involving elements of repetitive microtrauma associated with certain physiologic and anatomic risk factors.

Methods

Initial treatment typically involves a combination of conservative treatment measures, with up to 90% success at 12-18 months. Surgical treatment is reserved for recalcitrant disease; traditionally involving open surgical débridement of the common extensor origin with reported success rates greater than 90%.

Results

Failure of surgical treatment can be multifactorial and present a challenge in determining the optimum management. Residual symptoms may be due to an incorrect initial diagnosis, inadequate surgical débridement, new pathology as a complication of the initial surgery and/or other patient-related and physician- related factors. Even more of a challenge is the possibility that etiology can be due to a combination of listed factors.

Discussion

In this review, we review the classification scheme for evaluating failed surgical treatment of LE first proposed by Morrey and expand on this classification system based on the senior author's experience. We present the senior author's preferred systematic approach to evaluation and management of these patients, as well as a salvage surgery technique used by the senior author to address the most common etiologies of surgical failure in these patients.

Ultrasound-Guided Injection of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma for Refractory Lateral Epicondylitis of Humerus: Case Series

Refractory lateral epicondylitis (RLE) is a tendinopathy of the elbow with less effective conservation treatment. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a new treatment option for RLE because of its repair-promoting effect on tissues. Although evidence demonstrates the efficacy of PRP in treating tendinopathies, the therapeutic utility of ultrasound-guided PRP injection for RLE is unknown. Here, we report two cases of RLE treated with PRP. The first patient was a 78-year-old man who received an unknown dose of local glucocorticoid injection at the local community clinic in June 2016. His pain recurred after exertion. The second patient was a 54-year-old woman who received a glucocorticoid injection (0.5 mL of compound betamethasone and 1.5 mL of 0.9% normal saline) in October 2020. Her pain could not be relieved. A physician diagnosed patients with RLE based on their medical history, symptoms, and clinical signs. The doctor injected PRP (the first patient in November 2020, the second in March 2021) under ultrasound guidance into the patient's attachment point of the extensor tendon at the lateral humeral epicondyle. The doctor evaluated the effectiveness of the treatment by ultrasonography, visual analogue scale, and the patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation. After four weeks of treatment, the pain was relieved, and functions continued to improve in the following three months. Moreover, the ultrasonography showed that the damaged tendons were repaired. Together, we demonstrate that ultrasound-guided PRP injection could considerably relieve pain, improve elbow joint functions in patients with RLE, and provide visible evidence that PRP repairs tendon damage.

Tenodesis with bone marrow venting under local anesthesia for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis: Results of 2 years of follow-up

Hypothesis

We hypothesized that the treatment of recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis requires accurate identification of the painful area to promote remodeling of the degenerated extensor insertion and to stabilize the tendon origin during tendon healing. Thus, we performed tenodesis with bone marrow venting under local anesthesia for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis.

Methods

Twenty patients (21 elbows) were treated with bone marrow venting at the painful area of the lateral epicondyle of the elbow and tenodesis using 2 soft anchors lateral to the capitellum (immediately distal to the painful area) and were followed up for ≥2 years. Patients were assessed using the numerical rating scale for pain and the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, and objective evaluation included active range of motion.

Results

The mean preoperative and postoperative pain scores were 7.5 and 0.5, respectively, indicating significant pain relief (P < .001). The mean preoperative and postoperative Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire scores were 44.2 and 1.0, respectively (P < .001). Two elbows had a slightly positive Thomsen test at the final visit. No recurrence of intra-articular symptoms induced by synovial fringe impingement was observed. Patients experienced more pain at the bone-tendon junction of extensors than at the tendon parenchyma.

Conclusion

Tenodesis with bone marrow venting under local anesthesia was effective for subjective patient satisfaction and positive clinical outcomes at ≥2 years of follow-up in patients with recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis. Intra-articular symptoms can be improved by stabilization of the lateral soft tissue without treatment for intra-articular lesions.

A retrospective comparative study on arthroscopic suture anchors repair and tendon debridement versus arthroscopic tendon debridement for treatment of recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis

Aim

To compare the outcomes between the arthroscopic debridement of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) tendon alone and repairs to the ECRB tendon with suture anchor for the treatment of refractory lateral epicondylitis (LE).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed our patients who underwent arthroscopic surgical treatment for refractory LE by a single surgeon from January 2008 to June 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The visual analog scale (VAS), the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) scale, the Verhaar scoring system and the time of back to work were compared between two groups.

Results

Both groups showed a significant postoperative improvement regarding the VAS, MEPS, DASH, PRTEE and the Verhaar scoring system (p < 0.05). The repair group showed better results regarding the MEPS, DASH, PRTEE and Verhaar scoring system comparing with the debridement group, which were statically significant (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the VAS both at rest and activity at the final follow-up. There were no significant differences for the average time for return to work (p = 0.229). There were 11 patients in the debridement group and six patients in the repair group, who completed the MRI evaluation at 6 months postoperatively.

Conclusion

Compared with arthroscopic release and debridement of the ECRB tendon, arthroscopic suture anchor repairing of the origin of the ECRB tendon provides better outcomes when addressing the refractory LE.

Level of Evidence

Case Series: Level IV.

Percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy with the TX-1 device versus surgical tenotomy for the treatment of common extensor tendinosis

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes in patients treated for chronic common extensor tendinosis with percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy (TX-1 device) versus surgical tenotomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Outcomes from consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous tenotomy with the TX-1 device were compared with outcomes from consecutive patients who underwent surgical tenotomy. Patients were contacted to retrospectively assess their outcomes at 4 time points: before treatment, 2 weeks after treatment, 3 to 6 months after treatment, and 12 months after treatment. Outcomes were assessed using the quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand score (QuickDASH) and the Oxford elbow score (OES). Student's t tests were used to compare postprocedural versus preprocedural scores and percutaneous versus surgical tenotomy scores.

RESULTS

Response rates were 23 of 43 and 10 of 47 for surveyed percutaneous and surgical tenotomy patients, respectively. There were significant improvements from preprocedural scores in all primary outcome measures at 3-to-6-month and 12-month time points for both procedures. No significant changes from preprocedural scores were seen for either procedure at 2 weeks after treatment or between percutaneous and surgical tenotomy in preprocedural or postprocedural scores for any outcome measure. At 2 weeks, improved percutaneous tenotomy scores approached significance compared with percutaneous preprocedural QuickDASH (p = 0.060) and surgical 2-week OES function domain (p = 0.074) scores.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasonic percutaneous tenotomy with the TX-1 device and surgical tenotomy have similar outcomes for chronic common extensor tendinosis, with significant symptomatic improvement occurring after 3 to 6 months. Larger studies are needed to assess for differences at 2 weeks.

Open Versus Arthroscopic Treatment of Chronic Lateral Epicondylitis and Worker's Compensation

Purpose

To compare the short-term outcomes between arthroscopic and open procedures for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Because a significant portion of patients have worker’s compensation (WC), the outcomes in these subgroups were separately analyzed.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients who had surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis by a single surgeon from 2010 to 2017 was performed. Patients who were symptomatic after 9 months of conservative treatments including nonsteroidal medications, steroid injections, and physical therapy were offered surgical intervention. The type of surgery was selected after detailed consultation with the patient. Charts were reviewed for preoperative pain, grip strength as measured by dynamometer, smoking status, and WC status. Postoperative assessments included pain and grip strength at 6 weeks and time taken to return to full duty. Two groups were compared using unpaired t test and chi-squared tests. Results were compared with similar studies in the literature.

Results

The study included 30 patients in the arthroscopic debridement group and 42 patients in the open tenotomy and reinsertion group. Eighteen patients (25%) had WC. Compared with the open group, the arthroscopic group had earlier return to full duty (mean 7.13 weeks, confidence interval [CI] 6.21 to 8.05 versu mean of 12.22 weeks, CI 11.21 to 13.24; P < .001) and less time for complete pain relief (mean 7.4 weeks, CI 7.02 to 7.93 versus 9.5 , CI 8.68 to 10.44; P = .043). No difference was seen among the groups in terms of unfavorable outcome (persistent pain and recurrence of pain), JAMAR hand dynamometer score at 6 weeks, and visual analog score at 6 weeks. A total of 11 patients (15%) had unfavorable outcome. Incidence of unfavorable outcomes was more in patients with WC insurance (36% in WC versus 7% in non-WC; P = .023). No association was seen with smoking status. WC patients also had a longer time to return to full duty (16.68 weeks for WC versus 7.65 weeks for non-WC; P < .001) and a longer time to get complete pain relief (12.4 weeks for WC versus 7.5 weeks for non-WC; P < .001).

Conclusion

The arthroscopic technique offers advantages of earlier return to work and shorter recovery period along with additional advantages of joint inspection and ability to treat coexisting pathologies. WC patients had a longer time to return to full duty and time for complete pain relief.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

The effects of regenerative injection therapy compared to corticosteroids for the treatment of lateral Epicondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The lateral epicondyle is a common site for chronic tendinosis (i.e. lateral epicondylitis), a condition characterized by overuse and degeneration of a tendon due to repeated microtrauma. This leads to pain and functional limitations. There is a growing interest in non-surgical forms of treatment for this condition including provision of corticosteroid injections and regenerative injection therapy (provision of autologous blood and platelet rich plasma injections).

OBJECTIVE

We compared the effectiveness of corticosteroids with regenerative injection therapy for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials published in English language from 2008 to 2018. Databases used included PEDro, Scopus, PubMed, and CINAHL. Nine articles met our selection criteria. The PEDRo scale scores helped assess study quality. Cochrane risk of bias criteria helped assess bias. We analyzed results focusing on pain and function using meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Six out of 9 studies had low risk of bias. There were no short-term (1 and 2 month) differences in pain scores between the corticosteroid and regenerative injection groups. Participants receiving regenerative injections demonstrated greater long-term improvements lasting for a period of ≈2 years.

CONCLUSION

Regenerative injections provision results in greater long-term pain relief and improved function for people with lateral epicondylitis.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Lateral Elbow Pain Mimicking Lateral Epicondylitis: Long-term Follow-up of a Unique Surgical Protocol

HYPOTHESIS AND/OR BACKGROUND

The failure rate of extensor carpi radialis brevis debridement for refractory lateral epicondylitis is reported around 15%. Our novel arthroscopic treatment is predicated on the hypothesis that lateral epicondylitis is an intra-articular problem related to a variation of the capsule-meniscal anatomy that impinges on the radiocapitellar joint. We report long-term outcomes of 35 patients treated with a novel arthroscopic resection of their capsulosynovial fringe.

METHODS

All patients failed nonoperative treatment but had temporary improvement with an intra-articular injection. Arthroscopic treatment involved resecting the meniscus and the proximal edge of the orbicular ligament, followed by a tendon-sparing anterolateral capsulectomy. 35 patients underwent evaluation on average 9.2 years after surgery. Outcome measures included VAS, DASH, and questions on return to sports, satisfaction, and perceived benefit of surgery.

RESULTS

Median pain scores improved from 8 of 10 preoperatively to 0 of 10 postoperatively. This change was clinically and statistically significant, with 1 patient still requiring pain medication. Median DASH score at final follow-up was 1. Overall, 30 patients rated their postoperative outcome as much better, 5 rated it as better, and 0 reported their symptoms to be unchanged or worsened. All 35 patients stated they were happy they underwent the procedure and perceived a benefit. Totally, 4 of 35 patients had postoperative complications (2 with ulnar nerve symptoms, 2 with persistent pain), with one requiring revision surgery for persistent pain.

DISCUSSION AND/OR CONCLUSIONS

We report promising long-term clinical and functional results of a novel arthroscopic resection of the capsulosynovial complex in lateral epicondylitis.

Chronic lateral epicondylitis: challenges and solutions

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a significant source of pain and dysfunction resulting from repetitive gripping or wrist extension, radial deviation, and/or forearm supination. Although most cases are self-limiting over several years, controversy exists regarding the best treatment strategy for chronic LE. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), physical therapy (PT), shockwave therapy, and injections with corticosteroids or biologics are all conservative treatment options for LE. For refractory cases, surgical options include open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous techniques. In this review, the current evidence behind these treatment strategies is presented. The data demonstrate that NSAIDs, PT, bracing, and shockwave therapy provide limited benefit for treating LE. Biologics such as platelet-rich plasma and autologous whole-blood injections may be superior to steroid injections in the long-term management of LE. Although the initial results are promising, larger comparative studies on stem cell injections are needed. For refractory LE, open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous techniques are all highly effective, with no method seemingly superior over another. Arthroscopic and percutaneous approaches may result in faster recovery and earlier return to work.

Ultrasound-guided tendon fenestration versus open-release surgery for the treatment of chronic lateral epicondylosis of the elbow: protocol for a prospective, randomised, single blinded study

INTRODUCTION

Chronic lateral epicondylosis (CLE) of the elbow is a prevalent condition among middle-aged people with no consensus on optimal care management but for which surgery is generally accepted as a second intention treatment. Among conservative treatment options, ultrasound (US)-guided fenestration has shown encouraging results that should be explored before surgery is considered. The primary objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of US-guided fenestration with open-release surgery in patients with failure to improve following a minimum 6 months of conservative treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study protocol entails a two-arm, single-blinded, randomised, controlled design. Sixty-four eligible patients with clinically confirmed CLE will be assigned to either US-guided fenestration or open-release surgery. Fisher's exact test will be used to compare the proportion of patients reporting a change of 11/100 points or more in the Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation score at 6 months, according to an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary analyses will compare the two treatment groups in terms of pain and disability, functional limitations at work, pain-free grip strength, medication burden, patients' global impression of change and level of satisfaction at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months, using mixed linear models for repeated measures or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. Finally, recursive partitioning analyses will investigate US and elastography parameters as predictors of treatment success at 6 and 12 months. This data will contribute to evidence-based treatment guidelines for CLE and explore the value of imaging biomarkers to improve risk stratification plans and assist clinicians.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Research Ethics Board of our institution on 23 March 2016 (REB 15.327). In case of important protocol modifications, a new version of the protocol with appropriate amendments will be submitted to the REB for approval. Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at local, national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02710682.

Trends in Surgical Practices for Lateral Epicondylitis Among Newly Trained Orthopaedic Surgeons

Background:

Much controversy exists regarding the optimal surgical intervention for lateral epicondylitis because of a multitude of options available and the lack of comparative studies. Knowledge of the current practice trends would help guide the design of comparative studies needed to determine which surgical technique results in the best outcome.

Purpose:

To review the latest practice trends for the surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis among newly trained surgeons in the United States utilizing the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) database.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

The ABOS database was utilized to identify surgical cases for lateral epicondylitis submitted by Part II board certification examination candidates from 2004 through 2013. Inclusion criteria were predetermined using a combination of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Cases were organized by open and arthroscopic treatment groups and by fellowship training and were analyzed to determine differences in surgical techniques, complication rates, and concomitant procedures.

Results:

In total, 1150 surgeons submitted 2106 surgical cases for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. The number of surgical cases for lateral epicondylitis performed per 10,000 submitted cases significantly decreased from 26.7 in 2004 to 21.1 in 2013 (P = .002). Among all cases, 92.2% were open and 7.8% were arthroscopic, with no change in the incidence of arthroscopic surgeries over the study period. Shoulder and elbow (18.1%) and sports medicine (11.4%) surgeons were more likely to perform surgery arthroscopically compared with hand surgeons (6.1%) (P < .001). There was no difference in overall self-reported complication rates between open (4.4%) and arthroscopic (5.5%) procedures (P = .666). Percutaneous tenotomy, debridement only, and debridement with tendon repair comprised 6.4%, 46.3%, and 47.3% of open treatment, respectively. Sports medicine, hand, and shoulder and elbow surgeons were more likely to repair the tendon after debridement compared with other surgeons, who were more likely to perform debridement alone (P < .001). Hand surgeons were most likely to perform concomitant procedures, of which the majority were neuroplasties.

Conclusion:

Although comparative studies are ultimately necessary for determining the optimal surgical technique, researchers should be mindful of the differences in practices according to training and the extent to which concomitant procedures are being performed, as both these factors may confound any future results.

A Systematic Review of Tennis Elbow Surgery: Open Versus Arthroscopic Versus Percutaneous Release of the Common Extensor Origin

PURPOSE

To compare complications, function, pain, and patient satisfaction after conventional open, percutaneous, or arthroscopic release of the extensor origin for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

METHODS

A thorough review of 4 databases-PubMed, EBSCOhost, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) Plus, and Scopus-was performed to identify all studies that addressed surgical management of lateral epicondylitis. We included (1) studies published between 2000 and 2015 and (2) studies with clearly defined surgical techniques. We excluded (1) non-English-language manuscripts, (2) isolated case reports, (3) studies with fewer than 10 subjects, (4) animal studies, (5) studies with additional adjunctive procedures aside from release of the extensor origin, (6) clinical or systematic review manuscripts, (7) studies with a follow-up period of 6 months or less, and (8) studies in which less than 80% of patients completed follow-up. Each study was analyzed for complication rates, functional outcomes, pain, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Thirty reports were identified that included 848 open, 578 arthroscopic, and 178 percutaneous releases. Patients within each release group had a similar age (46 years vs 46 years vs 48 years; P = .9 and P = .4, respectively), whereas there was a longer follow-up time in patients who underwent surgery by an open technique (49.4 months vs 42.6 months vs 23 months, P < .001). There were no differences in complication rates among these techniques (3.8% vs 2.9% vs 3.9%; P = .5 and P = .9, respectively). However, open techniques were correlated with higher surgical-site infection rates than arthroscopic techniques (0.7% vs 0%, P = .04). Mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores were substantially better with both open and arthroscopic techniques than with percutaneous release (19.9 points vs 21.3 points vs 29 points, P < .001). In addition, there was less pain reported in the arthroscopic and percutaneous release groups as opposed to their open counterparts (1.9 points vs 1.4 points vs 1.3 points, P < .0001). There were no differences among the techniques in patient satisfaction rate (93.7% vs 89% vs 88%; P = .08 and P = .07, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Functional outcomes of open and arthroscopic releases may be superior to those of percutaneous release. In addition, patients may report less pain with arthroscopic and percutaneous techniques. Although the risk of complications is similar regardless of technique, patients may be counseled that their risk of infectious complications may be slightly higher with open releases. However, it is important to note that this statistical difference may not necessarily portend noticeable clinical differences.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV evidence.

Current trends in tendinopathy: consensus of the ESSKA basic science committee. Part I: biology, biomechanics, anatomy and an exercise-based approach

Chronic tendinopathies represent a major problem in the clinical practice of sports orthopaedic surgeons, sports doctors and other health professionals involved in the treatment of athletes and patients that perform repetitive actions. The lack of consensus relative to the diagnostic tools and treatment modalities represents a management dilemma for these professionals. With this review, the purpose of the ESSKA Basic Science Committee is to establish guidelines for understanding, diagnosing and treating this complex pathology.