Proximal disinsertion of the common extensor tendon for lateral elbow tendinopathy

Arthroscopic Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis Tenotomy and Debridement Versus Debridement Alone for Refractory Lateral Epicondylitis: Clinical and MRI Evaluation

Background:

Arthroscopic debridement of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) tendon is a widely accepted procedure used in refractory lateral epicondylitis. However, residual pain occurs in some patients.

Purpose:

To investigate the clinical effectiveness of arthroscopic extended debridement (ECRB tenotomy and debridement) in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Patients with refractory lateral epicondylitis were consecutively recruited for this study. They underwent traditional ECRB debridement (control group) or extended ECRB debridement (ED group) under arthroscopy. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) were used to compare elbow function between the groups at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was also performed to evaluate pathology at 12 months.

Results:

A total of 69 patients participated in the study (33 patients in the ED group and 36 in the control group). After surgery, all patients showed improvement on all 3 outcome scores. Compared with the control group, the ED group had significantly better postoperative MEPS and VAS scores at 3 months (P ≤ .001 for both) and 6 months (P ≤ .03 for both) but similar values at 12 months. DASH scores between groups were similar at all time periods. At the 12-month follow-up, no patients in the ED group reported pain with strenuous work. Return-to-work (RTW) times were also shorter in the ED group compared with the controls (8 ± 4 vs 18 ± 8 weeks; P < .001). Postoperative MRI assessments revealed no high signal intensities on the lateral epicondyle in the ED group, while there was an increased internal signal intensity on the lateral epicondyle in 83% of the controls.

Conclusion:

Collectively, the extended ECRB debridement technique resulted in enhanced pain relief in the early postoperative period as well as providing faster RTW times compared with the traditional debridement technique. At 1 year follow-up, there were no differences in outcome measures between groups, but residual abnormal MRI findings were more common in the traditional debridement group.

Surgical Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

A number of surgical techniques for managing tennis elbow have been described. One of the most frequently performed involves excising the affected portion of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB). The results of this technique, as well as most other described surgical techniques for this condition, have been reported as excellent, yet none have been compared with placebo surgery.

HYPOTHESIS

The surgical excision of the degenerative portion of the ECRB offers no additional benefit over and above placebo surgery for the management of chronic tennis elbow.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

This study investigated surgical excision of the macroscopically degenerated portion of the ECRB (surgery; n = 13) as compared with skin incision and exposure of the ECRB alone (sham; n = 13) to treat patients who had tennis elbow for >6 months and had failed at least 2 nonsurgical modalities. The primary outcome measure was defined as patient-rated frequency of elbow pain with activity at 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcome measures included patient-rated pain and functional outcomes, range of motion, epicondyle tenderness, and strength at 6 months and 2.5 years. All outcome measures up to and including the 6-month follow-up were measured in person; the longer-term questionnaire was conducted in person or over the phone.

RESULTS

The 2 groups, surgery and sham, were similar for age, sex, hand dominance, and duration of symptoms. Both procedures improved patient-rated pain frequency and severity, elbow stiffness, difficulty with picking up objects, difficulty with twisting motions, and overall elbow rating >6 months and at 2.5 years ( P < .01). Both procedures also improved epicondyle tenderness, pronation-supination range, grip strength, and modified Orthopaedic Research Institute-Tennis Elbow Testing System at 6 months ( P < .05). No significant difference was observed between the groups in any parameter at any stage. No side effects or complications were reported. The study was stopped before the calculated number of patients were enrolled (40 per group); yet, a post hoc futility analysis was conducted that showed, based on the magnitude of the differences between the groups, >6500 patients would need to be recruited per group to see a significant difference between the groups at 26 weeks in the primary outcome (patient-rated frequency of elbow pain with activity).

CONCLUSION

With the number of available participants, this study failed to show additional benefit of the surgical excision of the degenerative portion of the ECRB over placebo surgery for the management of chronic tennis elbow.

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.

Complications of Lateral Epicondylar Release

Reported complication rates are low for lateral epicondylitis management, but the anatomic complexity of the elbow allows for possible catastrophic complication. This review documents complications associated with lateral epicondylar release: 67 studies reporting outcomes of lateral epicondylar release with open, percutaneous, or arthroscopic methods were reviewed and 6 case reports on specific complications associated with the procedure are included. Overall complication rate was 3.3%. For open procedures it was 4.3%, percutaneous procedures 1.9%, and arthroscopic procedures 1.1%. In higher-level studies directly comparing modalities, the complication rates were 1.3%, 0%, and 1.2%, respectively.