Aim: Description of and Prospective analysis of long-term outcomes of arthroscopic tennis elbow release.

Materials and Methods: 70 patients (72 elbows) with lateral epicondylitis, recalcitrant to a minimum of 6 months of supervised conservative management, underwent arthroscopic lateral epicondylar release. Each patient was clinically evaluated pre operatively and post-operatively and a quantitative assessment of the grip strength was collected on both sides with a dynamometer, in full elbow extension and in 90 degrees flexion. Functional assessment with the Mayo Elbow Performance Score and dynamometer grip strengths were collected for the first two years post-operation.

Results: Postoperative follow-up averaged 36 months (range 24–45months). The average MEPS increased from 57/100 to 89/100. 66 patients were graded as excellent outcomes, and 4 patients were noted to have fair outcomes. The latter 4 patients were assessed to have type 2 failure, with two subsequently requiring PIN releases, one requiring an osteochondroma excision from the distal laeral humerus, and one patient lost to follow-up. Dynamometr strength returned to above pre-operative level at an average of 3 months and were and average of 35% greater than the pre-operative level at final review. Complications consisted of synovial fistulae (n=8) all of which spontaneously resolved within one month, 2 portal superficial infections, 1 mild anterior capsular contracture, and no neurovascular injuries. Concurrent intra-articular pathology that was noted included radio-capitellar chondrosis (n=22), lateral trochlear chondrosis (n=20), anterolateral synovial plicae (n=17), synovitis (n=13), radial head instability (n=3), and synovial osteochondromatosis (n=1).

Conclusion: Arthroscopic tennis elbow release is a valid technique for the treatment of recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis.

Background Various methods of analgesia have been described for shoulder surgery, and we routinely used inter-scalene analgesia. We hypothesised that inter-scalene analgesia provided better pain control than intra-bursal analgesia.

Methods We prospectively collected data over a consecutive two year period, with the first year patients (n=65) all having inter-scalene and the second year patients (n=79) having intra-bursal catheters. The interscalene 16F catheters were placed with the patient anaesthetised and an electrical Touhy needle. The intra-bursal 16F catheters were placed at the end of the arthroscopic shoulder operation, under direct vision, exiting from the posterior portal. Pain parameters collected were pain scores, visual analogue scales, analgesia useage, and whether or not the patients were comfortably able to go home the same day as surgery.

Results Pain and visual analogue scores showed no statistical differences between the two groups. Analgesia useage was greater in the inter-scalene group than the intra-bursal group, but was not statistically different. 32/65 (49%) of patients with inter-scalene catheters and 75/79 (95%) of patients with intra-bursal catheters were able to comfortably go home on the day of surgery, 28/33 (84%) of the inter-scalene patients were hospitalised due to post-operative pain, and 5/33 (15%) due to anaesthetic or medical problems. 2/4 (50%) of hospitalised intra-bursal patients had post-anaesthetic complications, and 2/4(50%) had pre-operative medical problems.

Discussion Inter-scalene analgesia is widely published as the most-effective route for post-shoulder surgery pain control. Our data does not support this view, and intra-bursal analgesia administration was found to be more effective at returning a comfortable patient home on the day of surgery. Our practice now routinely utilises intra-bursal catheters for either bolus analgesia or continuous pumps.