Open Versus Arthroscopic Tennis Elbow Release
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".