Open Versus Arthroscopic Tennis Elbow Release
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to determine if quality of life and function are different following arthroscopic versus open tennis elbow release surgery. Based on retrospective studies, both approaches have been found to be beneficial, but no prospective randomized comparison has been conducted to date. Methods: Following a minimum six-months of conservative treatment, seventy-one patients (>16 yrs old) were randomized intraoperatively to undergo either arthroscopic or open lateral release. Outcome measures were the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), a 5-question VAS Pain Scale, and grip strength. Study assessments took place pre-, and 6-week, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-surgery. Comparisons between groups and within groups over time were conducted using repeated measures ANOVA. A minimal clinically significant difference for the DASH had been previously identified as 15 points, and was used to compare groups as well at 12-months post-operative (Beaton et al. 2001). Results: Fifteen women and 19 men underwent the open procedure with a mean age of 47.1 years (6.7) and 13 women and 21 men were in the arthroscopic group with a mean age of 45.0 (6.9). No pre-surgery differences were found between groups based on age, sex, DASH or VAS scores. Both groups demonstrated a significant improvement in subjective measures and grip strength by 12-months post-surgery, and no significant differences were found between groups at any time point. The DASH, our primary outcome, decreased from a mean (SD) of 47.5 (14.5) pre-surgery to 21.9 (21.8) at 12-months post-surgery in the Open group and from 52.7 (16.0) to 22.6 (21.1) in the Arthroscopic group. VAS-pain scores (%) decreased in the Open group from 62.5 (17.2) pre-operatively to 30.0 (26.5) at 12-months. In the arthroscopic group, scores decreased from 63.7 (15.9) to 26.2 (24.6). Grip strength (kg) increased on the affected side from 23.6 (14.9) to 29.3 (16.3) and 21.4 (15.4) to 29.8 (15.4) for Open and Arthroscopic groups, respectively. The number of participants to reach the minimum clinically significant change did not differ between groups, 17 in the open group and 19 in the arthroscopic group. Ten in each group did not reach this threshold. Based on post hoc regression analysis, no factors (age, gender, WCB status, or smoking status) were found to be significant predictors of DASH or VAS outcome at 12-months post-surgery. However, this study was not adequately powered to draw any specific conclusions in this regard. The only significant difference between study groups was that the arthroscopic technique resulted in longer surgery time, 34.0 versus 22.5 minutes (p=0.005). Conclusion: Based on this study, there is no difference between arthroscopic and open tennis elbow release surgery in subjective outcome, specifically DASH and VAS pain scale, or in function, specifically, grip strength, at 12-months post-operative. Therefore, there may not be any benefit to the increased experience and operating room time required to perform a lateral release arthroscopically versus an open approach.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».