Treatment of obstinate tennis elbow by debridement and repair under elbow arthroscopy combined with small incision / 中国骨伤

ABSTRACT

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate the effectivity and the improvement of elbow arthroscopic techniques of treating obstinate tennis elbow using debridement and repair under elbow arthroscopy combined with small incision.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>From March 2014 to February 2017, 36 patients(total 36 elbows) with obstinate tennis elbow were treated consecutively using debridement and repair under elbow arthroscopy combined with small incision open, the two methods alternate. In key process, the first 18 cases [group A including 8 males and 12 females with an average age of (43.89±9.71) years old, the treatment time was(17.39±10.53) months] used direct-looking operation and arthroscopic verification, the latter 18 cases[group B including 7 males and 11 females with an averave age of (44.28±8.04) years old, the treatment time was(15.50±9.18) months] used arthroscopic operation and direct-looking verification. The arthroscopic and gross pathological findings were observed during the operation. After operation serious neurovascular complications were observed. The operation time was compared between two groups. MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance Score) and VAS scores were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>All patients were followed up for an average of (17.22±8.47) months in group A and (17.83±8.83) months in group B. There was 1 case of nerve injury without infection. VAS score was improved from preoperative 4.33±1.24 to postoperative 0.61±0.70 in group A, and from 4.50±1.47 to postoperative 0.67±0.69 in group B. MEPS of group A was improved from preoperative 62.22±7.90 to postoperative 93.06±5.18 in group A, and from preoperative 61.94±8.93 to postoperative 92.22±5.21 in group B. There were no statistical differences between two groups in MEPS and VAS score. The operation time in group B(54.06±8.43) min was less than that in group A(73.39±12.78) min. Thirty-two cases were satisfied greatly with treatment results, 3 cases satisfied, 1 case unsatisfied. The main reasons that results in dissatisfaction were nerve injury.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Treating obstinate tennis elbow using debridement and repair under elbow arthroscopy combined with small incision have open and arthroscopic surgery advantages, with thorough therapeutic effect. The procedure is suitable to try to explore and improve the elbow arthroscopic technique.</p>