Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

TENNIS ELBOW: COMPARISON OF OPEN AND PERCUTANEOUS TECHNIQUES



Abstract

Aims of the Study: To compare the outcome of percutaneous release and formal open release for tennis elbow.

Material and Methods: We conducted a prospective randomised controlled trial. 45 patients (total of 47 elbows) underwent either a formal open release or a percutaneous tenotomy (24 open, 23 percutaneous). All patients had pre-operative assessment by the DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) scoring system. The surgery was performed by 1 surgeon (BN Muddu). Both groups were followed up for a minimum of 12 months and re-assessed using the DASH scores, time for return to work and patient satisfaction. Statistical analysis using Mann-Whitney and repeated measures ANOVA were performed.

Results: The groups were similar in respect of demographic and pre-test variables. Statistical analyses using Mann-Whitney showed significant differences for patient satisfaction (p=0.012), time to return to work (p=0.0001), improvements in DASH Score (p=0.002) and improvement in sporting activities (p=0.046). There was a trend to improvement in work related activity. Repeated measures ANOVA comparing the pre-operative data for each group were also significant for standardized DASH scores (p=0.0082) and sporting activities (p=0.043).

Discussion/Conclusion: Our study has shown that there is a significant difference in outcome in the two patient groups. Those patients undergoing a percutaneous release returned to work on average 3 weeks earlier and their symptoms as shown from their DASH scores improved significantly more than those undergoing an open procedure. The percutaneous procedure is a quicker, simpler procedure to perform than an open procedure. Our study has shown that patients have significantly better outcome measures after a percutaneous procedure.

The abstracts were prepared by David Stanley. Correspondence should be addressed to him c/o British Orthopaedic Association, Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PN.