Scholarlink

Purpose <p>The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of arthroscopic debridement and extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) tendon repair with suture anchor reattachment versus arthroscopic debridement alone in patients with refractory lateral epicondylitis (LE).</p> Methods <p>From January 2016 to December 2022, 56 eligible patients with recalcitrant LE underwent either arthroscopic debridement alone (Group A, <i>n</i> = 26) or arthroscopic ECRB repair (Group B, <i>n</i> = 30). Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, grip strength measurement, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36).</p> Results <p>There was no difference in preoperative demographics between two groups (<i>P</i> &gt; 0.05). The mean follow-up duration was 29.9 ± 4.8 months (range, 25–38 months) in Group A and 30.4 ± 5.2 months (range, 24–39 months) in Group B. At the final follow-up, both groups showed significant improvements in MEPS, DASH, VAS, and grip strength (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.05). No significant differences were observed in postoperative VAS scores or elbow range of motion between two groups (<i>P</i> &gt; 0.05). However, Group B demonstrated superior MEPS (95.1 ± 8.6 vs. 83.6 ± 8.4, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001), DASH (9.4 ± 2.3 vs. 17.5 ± 3.2, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001), grip strength (44.54 ± 10.53&#xa0;kg vs. 34.12 ± 9.69&#xa0;kg, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001), and SF-36 scores (PCS: 52.8 ± 5.7 vs. 45.6 ± 5.1; MCS: 54.7 ± 6.1 vs. 46.1 ± 5.8; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.05) compared to Group A at the final follow-up. No serious complications requiring reoperation were encountered in both groups during the follow-up period.</p> Conclusions <p>Arthroscopic ECRB tendon repair with suture anchor reattachment provided significantly better functional recovery, grip strength preservation, and quality-of-life outcomes compared to debridement alone in refractory LE. While both techniques could alleviate pain effectively, tendon repair may be prioritized for patients requiring optimal functional restoration.</p> Level of evidence <p>Prospective randomized comparative study, Level Ⅱ.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon repair is necessary for arthroscopic treatment of refractory lateral epicondylitis of the elbow: a prospective randomized comparative study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月31日

查看全文
  • Kewei Ren,
  • Peiwen Li,
  • Yimin Qi,
  • Abdul Aleem Khan,
  • Kaibin Zhang

摘要

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of arthroscopic debridement and extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) tendon repair with suture anchor reattachment versus arthroscopic debridement alone in patients with refractory lateral epicondylitis (LE).

Methods

From January 2016 to December 2022, 56 eligible patients with recalcitrant LE underwent either arthroscopic debridement alone (Group A, n = 26) or arthroscopic ECRB repair (Group B, n = 30). Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, grip strength measurement, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36).

Results

There was no difference in preoperative demographics between two groups (P > 0.05). The mean follow-up duration was 29.9 ± 4.8 months (range, 25–38 months) in Group A and 30.4 ± 5.2 months (range, 24–39 months) in Group B. At the final follow-up, both groups showed significant improvements in MEPS, DASH, VAS, and grip strength (P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in postoperative VAS scores or elbow range of motion between two groups (P > 0.05). However, Group B demonstrated superior MEPS (95.1 ± 8.6 vs. 83.6 ± 8.4, P < 0.001), DASH (9.4 ± 2.3 vs. 17.5 ± 3.2, P < 0.001), grip strength (44.54 ± 10.53 kg vs. 34.12 ± 9.69 kg, P < 0.001), and SF-36 scores (PCS: 52.8 ± 5.7 vs. 45.6 ± 5.1; MCS: 54.7 ± 6.1 vs. 46.1 ± 5.8; P < 0.05) compared to Group A at the final follow-up. No serious complications requiring reoperation were encountered in both groups during the follow-up period.

Conclusions

Arthroscopic ECRB tendon repair with suture anchor reattachment provided significantly better functional recovery, grip strength preservation, and quality-of-life outcomes compared to debridement alone in refractory LE. While both techniques could alleviate pain effectively, tendon repair may be prioritized for patients requiring optimal functional restoration.

Level of evidence

Prospective randomized comparative study, Level Ⅱ.