...
【24h】

Arthroscopic versus open tennis elbow release: 3- to 6-year results of a case-control series of 305 elbows

机译:关节镜和网球肘发布:3 -305年6年一系列病例对照的结果肘部

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of arthroscopic and open tendon release in tennis elbow (TE). Methods: We compared the outcome of patients treated by an open tendon release in the period from 2002 to 2005 (n = 80) with that of patients treated by an arthroscopic release of the extensor carpi radialis brevis in the period from 2005 to 2008 (n = 225). In both groups the inclusion criteria were symptomatic TE refractory to conservative care for a minimum of 6 months and a clinical follow-up of at least 3 years. The diagnosis was based on a typical history and positive clinical findings. Patients with previous surgery in the elbow, chondral or osteochondral lesions, osteoarthritis, or free bodies were excluded. To have a similar follow-up period in the 2 groups (median, 4 years), the follow-up was conducted at 2 different time points. Results: The groups did not differ significantly with regard to the age of the patients, distribution of gender, distribution of affected side, duration of symptoms, or baseline score on the short version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH). We did not observe any major complications. The failure rate was not significantly different between the 2 groups. At follow-up, the mean QuickDASH score was statistically significantly better (P =.004) in the arthroscopic group (11.6 points; SD, 15.6 points) compared with that in the open group (17.8 points; SD, 19.4 points). The percentage of elbows with an excellent outcome at follow-up (QuickDASH score <20 points) was significantly higher in the arthroscopic group (78%) than in the open group (67%) (P =.04). Conclusions: Both a traditional open approach and the newer arthroscopic method provide an effective treatment of recalcitrant TE without major complications. The arthroscopic method offers a small, but not insignificant, improvement in the outcome as evaluated by the QuickDASH score. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic case-control study.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是比较关节镜和开放的肌腱的结果在网球肘(TE)。而患者的结果腱释放在2002年开放2005 (n = 80)与患者的治疗关节镜伸腕的释放径短的时期从2005年到2008年(n = 225)。症状TE耐火保守吗照顾至少6个月,临床至少3年的随访。基于一个典型的历史和积极的临床发现。肘、关节软骨或骨软骨病变,骨关节炎,或免费的身体被排除在外。有类似的随访期间两组吗(平均4年),后续进行两个不同的时间点。差别不是很明显的年龄患者的性别分布,分布的影响方面,持续时间症状,或短基线分数版本残疾的手臂、肩膀和手调查问卷(QuickDASH)。主要的并发症。两组之间的明显不同。随访,平均QuickDASH得分统计上显著改善(P = 04)关节镜组(11.6分;分)的价格相比开放组(17.8分;与一个优秀的随访结果(QuickDASH得分< 20分)明显在关节镜组(78%)高于开放组(67%)(P = .04点)。传统方法和新开放关节镜提供一个有效的方法没有主要治疗顽固的TE并发症。小,但不是无关紧要的,改善评估的结果QuickDASH得分。证据等级:III级,治疗病例对照研究。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号