Lateral epicondylitis, popularly known as tennis elbow, has a high incidence in athletes, around 50%, with a high prevalence in beginners learning the one-handed backhand. It is a clinical orthopaedic condition with a major impact on public health due to its high frequency in manual workers, 10.5% of whom may have lateral elbow pain and 2.4% of whom have a confirmed diagnosis. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of arthroscopic versus non-arthroscopic techniques (open and percutaneous). This is a systematic review with meta-analysis. There is no need for approval by the ethics committee or institutional scientific review board. The reference lists of the included and previously published articles were searched for more relevant studies that met the eligibility criteria. Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five articles were selected containing patients diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis who underwent surgical treatment by arthroscopy, open surgery and/or percutaneous surgery. A total of 544 patients were included, with a mean age of 46 years. Of these, 347 were treated by arthroscopy, 81 by open surgery and 42 by percutaneous surgery. The results were analyzed using the DASH (Disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) score, which assesses dysfunctions of the arm, shoulder and hand. In addition, some studies analyzed the VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) index, patient satisfaction, complications and other clinical assessment scales.Arthroscopic, open and percutaneous surgeries proved to be effective methods for treating lateral epicondylitis.However, because arthroscopy is a method that allows a complete intra-articular evaluation and adequate release of the tendons without ligament involvement, it was associated with a better prognosis in terms of pain, limb mobility and consequent patient satisfaction when compared to open and percutaneous procedures.
Read full abstract