ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Lateral epicondylitis or lateral elbow tendinopathy is a common condition which needs to be addressed appropriately. This condition usually responds well to non-operative treatment. However, an orthopaedic physician needs to be aware of the recalcitrant cases and equip surgical armamentarium to provide adequate care. METHODOLOGY: The literature search was performed on PubMed, Medline and Google scholar using the keywords Tennis elbow, recalcitrant, thorntons technique, surgical options, for this narrative review. CONCLUSION: This article focuses on the causes for recalcitrant tendinopathy and review of its surgical options.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of arthroscopic and open surgical techniques on the treatment of shoulder multidirectional instability. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted using the databases MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Original articles on the surgical management of multidirectional instability were retrieved against selection criteria. Data were extracted and divided into three groups by surgical technique. Proportion and mean meta-analyses were performed for comparison. RESULTS: The available evidence was from 35 level IV and 1 level II studies. The recurrent instability rate was 9.9 % (95 % CI 7.3-12.9 %) in open capsular shift (OCS) group and 6.0 % (95 % CI 3.7-8.9 %) in arthroscopic capsular plication (ACP) group, between which no difference was observed. However, thermal capsular shrinkage (TCS) group resulted in a recurrent instability rate of 23.9 % (95 % CI 16.6-32.2 %), significantly higher than the above two groups. OCS and ACP groups revealed low reoperation rates of approximately 5.2 % (95 % CI 2.7-8.5 %) and 4.8 % (95 % CI 2.3-8.0 %), respectively, which are lower than that in TCS group of 16.9 % (95 % CI 12.4-21.8 %). OCS caused more loss of external rotation than ACP, losing 7.0 (95 % CI 3.3-10.6) degrees versus 2 (95 % CI 0.9-2.4) degrees, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ACP and OCS techniques have similar primary outcomes, but the former causes less post-operative stiffness. It is suggestible to avoid TCS in the treatment of MDI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
Subject(s)
Joint Instability/surgery , Shoulder Joint/surgery , Arthroscopy , Humans , Shoulder/surgeryABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: After post-traumatic radial head replacement, pain caused by a loose prosthesis might incorrectly be assumed to be post-traumatic. Reliable guidelines for diagnosing a symptomatic loose radial head prosthesis are lacking. We noted that pain from a loose stem within the proximal radius may present as proximal radial forearm pain. METHODS: The medical records and radiographs of 14 consecutive cases (13 patients) with proximal radial forearm pain associated with a loose radial head prosthesis were reviewed retrospectively. The indication for revision surgery was painful loosening of the prosthesis within the canal of the proximal radius in 7 patients (8 cases) and pain without preoperative confirmation of the loosening in 2 patients (2 cases). Various prosthetic designs had been used in the primary operations. RESULTS: In 12 of 14 cases, the loosening was evident radiographically, but in 2 the only indication of a loose prosthesis (confirmed surgically) was proximal radial forearm pain. One patient was lost to follow-up. Revision or prosthetic removal eliminated the pain in 7 of 9 cases and decreased it in 1. One patient with moderate pain had an arthritic elbow and had no significant lasting relief from surgery. Follow-up averaged 27 months. CONCLUSION: The presence of proximal radial forearm pain in a patient with a radial head prosthesis is an indicator of symptomatic mechanical loosening. If the prosthesis has a textured surface for bone ingrowth, and was inserted without cement, we now consider this a strong indicator of loosening, even in the absence of radiographic signs.
