Gregory Cvetanovich, MD

ABSTRACT

Meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) has yielded excellent long-term functional outcomes when performed in properly indicated patients. When evaluating a patient for potential MAT, it is imperative to evaluate past medical history and past surgical procedures. The ideal MAT candidate is a chronologically and physiologically young patient (<50 years) with symptomatic meniscal deficiency. Existing pathology in the knee needs to be carefully considered and issues such as malalignment, cartilage defects, and/or ligamentous instability may require a staged or concomitant procedure. Once an ideal candidate is identified, graft selection and preparation are critical steps to ensure a proper fit and long-term viability of the meniscus. When selecting the graft, accurate measurements must be taken, and this is most commonly performed using plain radiographs for this. Graft fixation can be accomplished by placing vertical mattress sutures and tying those down with the knee in full extension.

Continue to: Meniscus tears are common in the young, athletic patient population...

Meniscus tears are common in the young, athletic patient population. In the United States alone, approximately 700,000 meniscectomies are performed annually.¹ Given discouraging long-term clinical results following subtotal meniscectomy in young patients, meniscal repair is preferred whenever possible.² Despite short-term symptom relief if subtotal meniscectomy is required, some patients often go on to develop localized pain in the affected compartment, effusions, and eventual development of osteoarthritis. In such patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency, meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has yielded excellent long-term functional outcomes.^3-5 Three recently published systematic reviews describe the outcomes of MAT in thousands of patients, noting positive outcomes in regard to pain and function for the majority of patients.^6-8 Specifically, in a review conducted by Elattar and colleagues⁷ consisting of 44 studies comprising 1136 grafts in 1068 patients, the authors reported clinical improvement in Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale score (44 to 77), visual analog scale (48 mm to 17 mm), and International Knee Documentation Committee (84% normal/nearly normal, 89% satisfaction), among other outcomes measures. Additionally, the complication (21.3%) and failure rates (10.6%) were considered acceptable by all authors. The purpose of this article is to review indications, operative preparation, critical aspects of surgical technique, and additional concomitant procedures commonly performed alongside MAT.

1. PATIENT SELECTION

When used with the proper indications, MAT offers improved functional outcomes and reduced pain for patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency. When evaluating a patient for potential MAT, it is imperative to evaluate past medical history and past surgical procedures. The ideal MAT candidate is a chronologically and physiologically young patient (<50 years) with symptomatic meniscal deficiency who does not have (1) evidence of diffuse osteoarthritis (Outerbridge grade <2), including the absence of significant bony flattening or osteophytes in the involved compartment; (2) inflammatory arthritis; (3) active or previous joint infection; (4) mechanical axis malalignment; or (5) morbid obesity (Table). Long-leg weight-bearing anterior-posterior alignment radiographs are important in the work-up of any patient being considered for MAT, and consideration for concomitant or staged realignment high tibial osteotomy (HTO) or distal femoral osteotomy (DFO) should be given for patients in excessive varus or valgus, respectively. Although the decision to perform a realignment osteotomy is made on a patient-specific basis, if the weight-bearing line passes medial to the medial tibial spine or lateral to the lateral tibial spine, HTO or DFO, respectively, should be considered. Importantly, MAT is not typically recommended in the asymptomatic patient.⁹ Although some recent evidence suggests MAT may have chondroprotective effects on articular cartilage following meniscectomy, there is insufficient long-term outcome data to support the use of MAT as a prophylactic measure, especially given the fact that graft deterioration inevitably occurs at 7 to 10 years, with patients having to consider avoiding meniscus-dependent activities following transplant to protect their graft from traumatic failure.^10,11

Table. Summary of Indications and Contraindications for Meniscal Allograft Transplant (MAT)

^aContraindications for MAT are controversial, as the available literature discussing contraindications is very limited. This list is based on the experience of the senior author.

Long-term prospective studies have shown high graft survival and predominantly positive functional results after MAT. Age indications have expanded, with 1 recent study reporting 6% reoperation rate and zero failures in a cohort of 37 adolescent MAT patients.¹² High survival rates hold even among an athletic population, where rates of return to play after MAT have been reported to be >75% for those competing at a high school level or higher.¹³ In an active military population, <2% of patients progressed to revision MAT or total knee arthroplasty at minimum 2-year follow-up, but 22% of patients were unable to return to military duty owing to residual knee limitations.¹⁴ In this series, tobacco use correlated with failure, whereas MAT by high-volume, fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons decreased rates of failure.

2. GRAFT SELECTION

In preparation for MAT, accurate measurements must be taken for appropriate size matching. Several measurement techniques have been described, including using plain radiographs, 3D computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).^15-18 There is limited data regarding the consequences of an improperly sized donor meniscus; however, an oversized lateral meniscus has been shown to increase the contact forces across the articular cartilage.¹⁹ Additionally, an undersized allograft may result in normal forces across the articular cartilage but greater forces across the meniscus.¹⁹

When sizing the recipient knee for MAT, accurate width and length measurements are critical. The most common technique used today includes measurements using anteroposterior and lateral radiographic images as described by Pollard and colleagues.¹⁵ The width of the meniscus is determined by the distance between 2 vertical lines perpendicular to the joint line, 1 of them tangential to the margin of the tibia metaphysis and the other between the medial and lateral tibial eminence in both knees (Figures 1A,1B). The length of the meniscus is measured on a lateral radiograph. A line is drawn at the level of the articular line between the anterior surface of the tibia above the tuberosity and a parallel line that is tangential to the posterior margin of the tibial plateau. Percent corrections are performed for these dimensions as described in previous publications.

Other techniques have been described to obtain accurate measurements of the recipient knee. For example, obtaining an MRI of the contralateral knee may provide a reproducible method of measuring both the width and length of the medial and lateral menisci.²⁰ CT has been used to measure the lateral meniscus independently, and it has been shown to exhibit less error in the measure of the tibial plateau when compared with X-rays.¹⁸ Both CT and MRI are more expensive than simple radiographs, and CT exposes the patient to an increased amount of radiation. Current evidence does not support standard use of these advanced imaging modalities for meniscal sizing.

Continue to: GRAFT PREPARATION AND PLACEMENT...

3. GRAFT PREPARATION AND PLACEMENT

At the time of surgery, the meniscus allograft is thawed in sterile saline and prepared on the back table. This can be done before or after the diagnostic arthroscopy and bone-slot preparation. Excess soft tissue surrounding the meniscal rim and/or anterior and posterior horns should be removed. Several techniques for MAT have been described, but we generally prefer a bridge-in-slot technique for both medial and lateral MAT.²¹ To prepare the meniscus allograft for a bridge-in-slot technique, the graft is cut with an oscillating saw to a width of 7 mm, with care taken to ensure that the bony insertions of both meniscal horns are preserved. Next, a transverse cut is made 10 mm below the meniscal horns to set the depth of the bone bridge. To assist with the sizing of the bone bridge, a rectangular sizing block and cutting jig is used (Figures 2A-2C). After marking the middle and posterior thirds of the meniscus, a No. 2 non-absorbable suture is placed at the junction of the posterior and middle thirds of the meniscus. This completes preparation of the allograft prior to implantation.

Attention is then turned to back the arthroscopy. A standard posteromedial (medial meniscus) or posterolateral (lateral meniscus) accessory incision is made, and a Henning retractor is carefully placed in order to receive the sutures that will be placed through the meniscus allograft via a standard inside-out repair technique. First, a zone-specific cannula is used to place a nitinol wire out the accessory incision. The looped end of the wire is pulled out of the anterior arthrotomy incision that will be used to shuttle the meniscus allograft into the joint. In order to pass the meniscal allograft into the joint, the passing suture previously placed through the meniscus is shuttled through the nitinol wire, and the wire is then pulled out the accessory incision, advancing the meniscus through the anteiror arthrotomy. As the meniscus is introduced, the traction suture is then gently tensioned to get the allograft completely into the joint. Next, the bone bridge is seated into the previously created bone slot, as the soft tissue component is manually pushed beneath the ipsilateral femoral condyle. Under direct visualization, the soft tissue component is reduced with a probe using firm, constant traction. To aid in reduction, it may be useful to apply compartment-specific varus or valgus stress and to cycle the knee once the meniscal complex is reduced.

4. GRAFT FIXATION

Once the graft has been passed completely into the joint, with the bone bridge seated into the bone slot, the long end of an Army-Navy retractor is placed firmly through the arthrotomy on the meniscal bone bridge, maintaining a downward force to allow the bridge to remain slotted. To lever down on the posterior aspect of the graft, a freer elevator is used from anterosuperior to posteroinferior. The bone bridge is then secured using a bioabsorbable interference screw, placed central to the bone bridge opposing the block to the ipsilateral compartment. The remainder of the meniscus is secured with an inside-out repair technique, working from posterior to anterior through a standard medial or lateral meniscal repair approach. In total, approximately 6 to 10 vertical mattress sutures are placed, and these can be placed both superiorly and inferiorly on the meniscus. Posteriorly, an all-inside suture repair device may be helpful. Finally, the anterior aspect of the meniscus is repaired to the capsule in an open fashion prior to closing the arthrotomy. Sutures are tied with the leg in extension. The meniscal repair incision is closed in a standard fashion using layers.

5. CONCOMITANT PATHOLOGY AND MAT

The presence of concomitant knee pathology in the context of meniscus deficiency is a challenging problem that requires careful attention to all aspects of the underlying condition of the knee. In cases where MAT is indicated, issues of malalignment, cartilage defects, and/or ligamentous instability may also need to be addressed either concomitantly or in staged fashion. For example, medial meniscal deficiency in the setting of varus alignment can be addressed with a concomitant HTO, whereas lateral meniscal deficiency in the setting of valgus malalignment can be addressed with a concomitant DFO. In both cases, the osteotomy corrects an abnormal mechanical axis, offloading the diseased compartment. This accomplishes 2 goals, namely to preserve the new MAT graft and to protect underlying articular cartilage.^22-24 The osteotomy is an important contributor to additional pain relief by offloading the compartment, and clinical studies have demonstrated that failure to address malalignment in the setting of surgical intervention for cartilage and meniscal insufficiency leads to inferior clinical outcomes and poor survival of transplanted tissue.^25-28

Continue to: In a meniscus-deficient patient with chondral lesions...

In a meniscus-deficient patient with chondral lesions (Outerbridge grade 3 or 4), concomitant MAT and cartilage restoration should be considered. Depending on the size and location of the chondral lesion, options include marrow stimulation, autologous chondrocyte implantation, osteochondral autograft transfer, as well as chondral and/or osteochondral allograft transplantation. In a systematic review of concomitant MAT and cartilage restoration procedures, Harris and colleagues²⁵ found that failure rates of the combined surgery were similar to those of either surgery in isolation.

Young athletes sustaining anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears commonly also have meniscal pathology that must be addressed. Most cases are treated with meniscal repair or partial meniscectomy, but occasionally patients present with ACL tear and symptomatic meniscal deficiency. Specifically, MAT survival relies largely on a knee with ligamentous stability, whereas outcomes of ACL reconstruction are improved with intact and functional menisci.²⁹ The surgical technique for MAT is modified slightly in the setting of performing a concomitant ACL reconstruction, with the ACL tibial tunnel drilled to avoid the meniscal bone slot if possible, followed by femoral tunnel creation. Femoral fixation of the ACL graft is accomplished after preparation of the meniscal slot. The meniscal graft is set into place (sutures are not yet tied), and tibial fixation of the ACL graft is performed next. We typically use an Achilles allograft for the ACL reconstruction, with the bone block used for femoral fixation to avoid bony impingement between the MAT bone bridge/block and the ACL graft. With the knee in full extension, the MAT sutures are tied at the conclusion of the surgical procedure. Concomitant MAT and ACL reconstruction has yielded positive long-term clinical outcomes, improved joint stability, and findings similar to historical results of ACL reconstruction or MAT performed in isolation.^30,31

CONCLUSION

When used with the proper indications, MAT has demonstrated the ability to restore function and reduce pain. Successful meniscal transplant requires attention to the patient’s past medical and surgical history. Similarly, care must be taken to address any concomitant knee pathology, such as coronal realignment, ligament reconstruction, or cartilage restoration.

ABSTRACT

Meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) has yielded excellent long-term functional outcomes when performed in properly indicated patients. When evaluating a patient for potential MAT, it is imperative to evaluate past medical history and past surgical procedures. The ideal MAT candidate is a chronologically and physiologically young patient (<50 years) with symptomatic meniscal deficiency. Existing pathology in the knee needs to be carefully considered and issues such as malalignment, cartilage defects, and/or ligamentous instability may require a staged or concomitant procedure. Once an ideal candidate is identified, graft selection and preparation are critical steps to ensure a proper fit and long-term viability of the meniscus. When selecting the graft, accurate measurements must be taken, and this is most commonly performed using plain radiographs for this. Graft fixation can be accomplished by placing vertical mattress sutures and tying those down with the knee in full extension.

Continue to: Meniscus tears are common in the young, athletic patient population...

Meniscus tears are common in the young, athletic patient population. In the United States alone, approximately 700,000 meniscectomies are performed annually.¹ Given discouraging long-term clinical results following subtotal meniscectomy in young patients, meniscal repair is preferred whenever possible.² Despite short-term symptom relief if subtotal meniscectomy is required, some patients often go on to develop localized pain in the affected compartment, effusions, and eventual development of osteoarthritis. In such patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency, meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has yielded excellent long-term functional outcomes.^3-5 Three recently published systematic reviews describe the outcomes of MAT in thousands of patients, noting positive outcomes in regard to pain and function for the majority of patients.^6-8 Specifically, in a review conducted by Elattar and colleagues⁷ consisting of 44 studies comprising 1136 grafts in 1068 patients, the authors reported clinical improvement in Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale score (44 to 77), visual analog scale (48 mm to 17 mm), and International Knee Documentation Committee (84% normal/nearly normal, 89% satisfaction), among other outcomes measures. Additionally, the complication (21.3%) and failure rates (10.6%) were considered acceptable by all authors. The purpose of this article is to review indications, operative preparation, critical aspects of surgical technique, and additional concomitant procedures commonly performed alongside MAT.

1. PATIENT SELECTION

When used with the proper indications, MAT offers improved functional outcomes and reduced pain for patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency. When evaluating a patient for potential MAT, it is imperative to evaluate past medical history and past surgical procedures. The ideal MAT candidate is a chronologically and physiologically young patient (<50 years) with symptomatic meniscal deficiency who does not have (1) evidence of diffuse osteoarthritis (Outerbridge grade <2), including the absence of significant bony flattening or osteophytes in the involved compartment; (2) inflammatory arthritis; (3) active or previous joint infection; (4) mechanical axis malalignment; or (5) morbid obesity (Table). Long-leg weight-bearing anterior-posterior alignment radiographs are important in the work-up of any patient being considered for MAT, and consideration for concomitant or staged realignment high tibial osteotomy (HTO) or distal femoral osteotomy (DFO) should be given for patients in excessive varus or valgus, respectively. Although the decision to perform a realignment osteotomy is made on a patient-specific basis, if the weight-bearing line passes medial to the medial tibial spine or lateral to the lateral tibial spine, HTO or DFO, respectively, should be considered. Importantly, MAT is not typically recommended in the asymptomatic patient.⁹ Although some recent evidence suggests MAT may have chondroprotective effects on articular cartilage following meniscectomy, there is insufficient long-term outcome data to support the use of MAT as a prophylactic measure, especially given the fact that graft deterioration inevitably occurs at 7 to 10 years, with patients having to consider avoiding meniscus-dependent activities following transplant to protect their graft from traumatic failure.^10,11

Table. Summary of Indications and Contraindications for Meniscal Allograft Transplant (MAT)

^aContraindications for MAT are controversial, as the available literature discussing contraindications is very limited. This list is based on the experience of the senior author.

Long-term prospective studies have shown high graft survival and predominantly positive functional results after MAT. Age indications have expanded, with 1 recent study reporting 6% reoperation rate and zero failures in a cohort of 37 adolescent MAT patients.¹² High survival rates hold even among an athletic population, where rates of return to play after MAT have been reported to be >75% for those competing at a high school level or higher.¹³ In an active military population, <2% of patients progressed to revision MAT or total knee arthroplasty at minimum 2-year follow-up, but 22% of patients were unable to return to military duty owing to residual knee limitations.¹⁴ In this series, tobacco use correlated with failure, whereas MAT by high-volume, fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons decreased rates of failure.

2. GRAFT SELECTION

In preparation for MAT, accurate measurements must be taken for appropriate size matching. Several measurement techniques have been described, including using plain radiographs, 3D computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).^15-18 There is limited data regarding the consequences of an improperly sized donor meniscus; however, an oversized lateral meniscus has been shown to increase the contact forces across the articular cartilage.¹⁹ Additionally, an undersized allograft may result in normal forces across the articular cartilage but greater forces across the meniscus.¹⁹

When sizing the recipient knee for MAT, accurate width and length measurements are critical. The most common technique used today includes measurements using anteroposterior and lateral radiographic images as described by Pollard and colleagues.¹⁵ The width of the meniscus is determined by the distance between 2 vertical lines perpendicular to the joint line, 1 of them tangential to the margin of the tibia metaphysis and the other between the medial and lateral tibial eminence in both knees (Figures 1A,1B). The length of the meniscus is measured on a lateral radiograph. A line is drawn at the level of the articular line between the anterior surface of the tibia above the tuberosity and a parallel line that is tangential to the posterior margin of the tibial plateau. Percent corrections are performed for these dimensions as described in previous publications.

Other techniques have been described to obtain accurate measurements of the recipient knee. For example, obtaining an MRI of the contralateral knee may provide a reproducible method of measuring both the width and length of the medial and lateral menisci.²⁰ CT has been used to measure the lateral meniscus independently, and it has been shown to exhibit less error in the measure of the tibial plateau when compared with X-rays.¹⁸ Both CT and MRI are more expensive than simple radiographs, and CT exposes the patient to an increased amount of radiation. Current evidence does not support standard use of these advanced imaging modalities for meniscal sizing.

Continue to: GRAFT PREPARATION AND PLACEMENT...

3. GRAFT PREPARATION AND PLACEMENT

At the time of surgery, the meniscus allograft is thawed in sterile saline and prepared on the back table. This can be done before or after the diagnostic arthroscopy and bone-slot preparation. Excess soft tissue surrounding the meniscal rim and/or anterior and posterior horns should be removed. Several techniques for MAT have been described, but we generally prefer a bridge-in-slot technique for both medial and lateral MAT.²¹ To prepare the meniscus allograft for a bridge-in-slot technique, the graft is cut with an oscillating saw to a width of 7 mm, with care taken to ensure that the bony insertions of both meniscal horns are preserved. Next, a transverse cut is made 10 mm below the meniscal horns to set the depth of the bone bridge. To assist with the sizing of the bone bridge, a rectangular sizing block and cutting jig is used (Figures 2A-2C). After marking the middle and posterior thirds of the meniscus, a No. 2 non-absorbable suture is placed at the junction of the posterior and middle thirds of the meniscus. This completes preparation of the allograft prior to implantation.

Attention is then turned to back the arthroscopy. A standard posteromedial (medial meniscus) or posterolateral (lateral meniscus) accessory incision is made, and a Henning retractor is carefully placed in order to receive the sutures that will be placed through the meniscus allograft via a standard inside-out repair technique. First, a zone-specific cannula is used to place a nitinol wire out the accessory incision. The looped end of the wire is pulled out of the anterior arthrotomy incision that will be used to shuttle the meniscus allograft into the joint. In order to pass the meniscal allograft into the joint, the passing suture previously placed through the meniscus is shuttled through the nitinol wire, and the wire is then pulled out the accessory incision, advancing the meniscus through the anteiror arthrotomy. As the meniscus is introduced, the traction suture is then gently tensioned to get the allograft completely into the joint. Next, the bone bridge is seated into the previously created bone slot, as the soft tissue component is manually pushed beneath the ipsilateral femoral condyle. Under direct visualization, the soft tissue component is reduced with a probe using firm, constant traction. To aid in reduction, it may be useful to apply compartment-specific varus or valgus stress and to cycle the knee once the meniscal complex is reduced.

4. GRAFT FIXATION

Once the graft has been passed completely into the joint, with the bone bridge seated into the bone slot, the long end of an Army-Navy retractor is placed firmly through the arthrotomy on the meniscal bone bridge, maintaining a downward force to allow the bridge to remain slotted. To lever down on the posterior aspect of the graft, a freer elevator is used from anterosuperior to posteroinferior. The bone bridge is then secured using a bioabsorbable interference screw, placed central to the bone bridge opposing the block to the ipsilateral compartment. The remainder of the meniscus is secured with an inside-out repair technique, working from posterior to anterior through a standard medial or lateral meniscal repair approach. In total, approximately 6 to 10 vertical mattress sutures are placed, and these can be placed both superiorly and inferiorly on the meniscus. Posteriorly, an all-inside suture repair device may be helpful. Finally, the anterior aspect of the meniscus is repaired to the capsule in an open fashion prior to closing the arthrotomy. Sutures are tied with the leg in extension. The meniscal repair incision is closed in a standard fashion using layers.

5. CONCOMITANT PATHOLOGY AND MAT

The presence of concomitant knee pathology in the context of meniscus deficiency is a challenging problem that requires careful attention to all aspects of the underlying condition of the knee. In cases where MAT is indicated, issues of malalignment, cartilage defects, and/or ligamentous instability may also need to be addressed either concomitantly or in staged fashion. For example, medial meniscal deficiency in the setting of varus alignment can be addressed with a concomitant HTO, whereas lateral meniscal deficiency in the setting of valgus malalignment can be addressed with a concomitant DFO. In both cases, the osteotomy corrects an abnormal mechanical axis, offloading the diseased compartment. This accomplishes 2 goals, namely to preserve the new MAT graft and to protect underlying articular cartilage.^22-24 The osteotomy is an important contributor to additional pain relief by offloading the compartment, and clinical studies have demonstrated that failure to address malalignment in the setting of surgical intervention for cartilage and meniscal insufficiency leads to inferior clinical outcomes and poor survival of transplanted tissue.^25-28

Continue to: In a meniscus-deficient patient with chondral lesions...

In a meniscus-deficient patient with chondral lesions (Outerbridge grade 3 or 4), concomitant MAT and cartilage restoration should be considered. Depending on the size and location of the chondral lesion, options include marrow stimulation, autologous chondrocyte implantation, osteochondral autograft transfer, as well as chondral and/or osteochondral allograft transplantation. In a systematic review of concomitant MAT and cartilage restoration procedures, Harris and colleagues²⁵ found that failure rates of the combined surgery were similar to those of either surgery in isolation.

Young athletes sustaining anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears commonly also have meniscal pathology that must be addressed. Most cases are treated with meniscal repair or partial meniscectomy, but occasionally patients present with ACL tear and symptomatic meniscal deficiency. Specifically, MAT survival relies largely on a knee with ligamentous stability, whereas outcomes of ACL reconstruction are improved with intact and functional menisci.²⁹ The surgical technique for MAT is modified slightly in the setting of performing a concomitant ACL reconstruction, with the ACL tibial tunnel drilled to avoid the meniscal bone slot if possible, followed by femoral tunnel creation. Femoral fixation of the ACL graft is accomplished after preparation of the meniscal slot. The meniscal graft is set into place (sutures are not yet tied), and tibial fixation of the ACL graft is performed next. We typically use an Achilles allograft for the ACL reconstruction, with the bone block used for femoral fixation to avoid bony impingement between the MAT bone bridge/block and the ACL graft. With the knee in full extension, the MAT sutures are tied at the conclusion of the surgical procedure. Concomitant MAT and ACL reconstruction has yielded positive long-term clinical outcomes, improved joint stability, and findings similar to historical results of ACL reconstruction or MAT performed in isolation.^30,31

CONCLUSION

When used with the proper indications, MAT has demonstrated the ability to restore function and reduce pain. Successful meniscal transplant requires attention to the patient’s past medical and surgical history. Similarly, care must be taken to address any concomitant knee pathology, such as coronal realignment, ligament reconstruction, or cartilage restoration.

ABSTRACT

Meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) has yielded excellent long-term functional outcomes when performed in properly indicated patients. When evaluating a patient for potential MAT, it is imperative to evaluate past medical history and past surgical procedures. The ideal MAT candidate is a chronologically and physiologically young patient (<50 years) with symptomatic meniscal deficiency. Existing pathology in the knee needs to be carefully considered and issues such as malalignment, cartilage defects, and/or ligamentous instability may require a staged or concomitant procedure. Once an ideal candidate is identified, graft selection and preparation are critical steps to ensure a proper fit and long-term viability of the meniscus. When selecting the graft, accurate measurements must be taken, and this is most commonly performed using plain radiographs for this. Graft fixation can be accomplished by placing vertical mattress sutures and tying those down with the knee in full extension.

Continue to: Meniscus tears are common in the young, athletic patient population...

Meniscus tears are common in the young, athletic patient population. In the United States alone, approximately 700,000 meniscectomies are performed annually.¹ Given discouraging long-term clinical results following subtotal meniscectomy in young patients, meniscal repair is preferred whenever possible.² Despite short-term symptom relief if subtotal meniscectomy is required, some patients often go on to develop localized pain in the affected compartment, effusions, and eventual development of osteoarthritis. In such patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency, meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has yielded excellent long-term functional outcomes.^3-5 Three recently published systematic reviews describe the outcomes of MAT in thousands of patients, noting positive outcomes in regard to pain and function for the majority of patients.^6-8 Specifically, in a review conducted by Elattar and colleagues⁷ consisting of 44 studies comprising 1136 grafts in 1068 patients, the authors reported clinical improvement in Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale score (44 to 77), visual analog scale (48 mm to 17 mm), and International Knee Documentation Committee (84% normal/nearly normal, 89% satisfaction), among other outcomes measures. Additionally, the complication (21.3%) and failure rates (10.6%) were considered acceptable by all authors. The purpose of this article is to review indications, operative preparation, critical aspects of surgical technique, and additional concomitant procedures commonly performed alongside MAT.

1. PATIENT SELECTION

When used with the proper indications, MAT offers improved functional outcomes and reduced pain for patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency. When evaluating a patient for potential MAT, it is imperative to evaluate past medical history and past surgical procedures. The ideal MAT candidate is a chronologically and physiologically young patient (<50 years) with symptomatic meniscal deficiency who does not have (1) evidence of diffuse osteoarthritis (Outerbridge grade <2), including the absence of significant bony flattening or osteophytes in the involved compartment; (2) inflammatory arthritis; (3) active or previous joint infection; (4) mechanical axis malalignment; or (5) morbid obesity (Table). Long-leg weight-bearing anterior-posterior alignment radiographs are important in the work-up of any patient being considered for MAT, and consideration for concomitant or staged realignment high tibial osteotomy (HTO) or distal femoral osteotomy (DFO) should be given for patients in excessive varus or valgus, respectively. Although the decision to perform a realignment osteotomy is made on a patient-specific basis, if the weight-bearing line passes medial to the medial tibial spine or lateral to the lateral tibial spine, HTO or DFO, respectively, should be considered. Importantly, MAT is not typically recommended in the asymptomatic patient.⁹ Although some recent evidence suggests MAT may have chondroprotective effects on articular cartilage following meniscectomy, there is insufficient long-term outcome data to support the use of MAT as a prophylactic measure, especially given the fact that graft deterioration inevitably occurs at 7 to 10 years, with patients having to consider avoiding meniscus-dependent activities following transplant to protect their graft from traumatic failure.^10,11

Table. Summary of Indications and Contraindications for Meniscal Allograft Transplant (MAT)

^aContraindications for MAT are controversial, as the available literature discussing contraindications is very limited. This list is based on the experience of the senior author.

Long-term prospective studies have shown high graft survival and predominantly positive functional results after MAT. Age indications have expanded, with 1 recent study reporting 6% reoperation rate and zero failures in a cohort of 37 adolescent MAT patients.¹² High survival rates hold even among an athletic population, where rates of return to play after MAT have been reported to be >75% for those competing at a high school level or higher.¹³ In an active military population, <2% of patients progressed to revision MAT or total knee arthroplasty at minimum 2-year follow-up, but 22% of patients were unable to return to military duty owing to residual knee limitations.¹⁴ In this series, tobacco use correlated with failure, whereas MAT by high-volume, fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons decreased rates of failure.

2. GRAFT SELECTION

In preparation for MAT, accurate measurements must be taken for appropriate size matching. Several measurement techniques have been described, including using plain radiographs, 3D computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).^15-18 There is limited data regarding the consequences of an improperly sized donor meniscus; however, an oversized lateral meniscus has been shown to increase the contact forces across the articular cartilage.¹⁹ Additionally, an undersized allograft may result in normal forces across the articular cartilage but greater forces across the meniscus.¹⁹

When sizing the recipient knee for MAT, accurate width and length measurements are critical. The most common technique used today includes measurements using anteroposterior and lateral radiographic images as described by Pollard and colleagues.¹⁵ The width of the meniscus is determined by the distance between 2 vertical lines perpendicular to the joint line, 1 of them tangential to the margin of the tibia metaphysis and the other between the medial and lateral tibial eminence in both knees (Figures 1A,1B). The length of the meniscus is measured on a lateral radiograph. A line is drawn at the level of the articular line between the anterior surface of the tibia above the tuberosity and a parallel line that is tangential to the posterior margin of the tibial plateau. Percent corrections are performed for these dimensions as described in previous publications.

Other techniques have been described to obtain accurate measurements of the recipient knee. For example, obtaining an MRI of the contralateral knee may provide a reproducible method of measuring both the width and length of the medial and lateral menisci.²⁰ CT has been used to measure the lateral meniscus independently, and it has been shown to exhibit less error in the measure of the tibial plateau when compared with X-rays.¹⁸ Both CT and MRI are more expensive than simple radiographs, and CT exposes the patient to an increased amount of radiation. Current evidence does not support standard use of these advanced imaging modalities for meniscal sizing.

Continue to: GRAFT PREPARATION AND PLACEMENT...

3. GRAFT PREPARATION AND PLACEMENT

At the time of surgery, the meniscus allograft is thawed in sterile saline and prepared on the back table. This can be done before or after the diagnostic arthroscopy and bone-slot preparation. Excess soft tissue surrounding the meniscal rim and/or anterior and posterior horns should be removed. Several techniques for MAT have been described, but we generally prefer a bridge-in-slot technique for both medial and lateral MAT.²¹ To prepare the meniscus allograft for a bridge-in-slot technique, the graft is cut with an oscillating saw to a width of 7 mm, with care taken to ensure that the bony insertions of both meniscal horns are preserved. Next, a transverse cut is made 10 mm below the meniscal horns to set the depth of the bone bridge. To assist with the sizing of the bone bridge, a rectangular sizing block and cutting jig is used (Figures 2A-2C). After marking the middle and posterior thirds of the meniscus, a No. 2 non-absorbable suture is placed at the junction of the posterior and middle thirds of the meniscus. This completes preparation of the allograft prior to implantation.

Attention is then turned to back the arthroscopy. A standard posteromedial (medial meniscus) or posterolateral (lateral meniscus) accessory incision is made, and a Henning retractor is carefully placed in order to receive the sutures that will be placed through the meniscus allograft via a standard inside-out repair technique. First, a zone-specific cannula is used to place a nitinol wire out the accessory incision. The looped end of the wire is pulled out of the anterior arthrotomy incision that will be used to shuttle the meniscus allograft into the joint. In order to pass the meniscal allograft into the joint, the passing suture previously placed through the meniscus is shuttled through the nitinol wire, and the wire is then pulled out the accessory incision, advancing the meniscus through the anteiror arthrotomy. As the meniscus is introduced, the traction suture is then gently tensioned to get the allograft completely into the joint. Next, the bone bridge is seated into the previously created bone slot, as the soft tissue component is manually pushed beneath the ipsilateral femoral condyle. Under direct visualization, the soft tissue component is reduced with a probe using firm, constant traction. To aid in reduction, it may be useful to apply compartment-specific varus or valgus stress and to cycle the knee once the meniscal complex is reduced.

4. GRAFT FIXATION

Once the graft has been passed completely into the joint, with the bone bridge seated into the bone slot, the long end of an Army-Navy retractor is placed firmly through the arthrotomy on the meniscal bone bridge, maintaining a downward force to allow the bridge to remain slotted. To lever down on the posterior aspect of the graft, a freer elevator is used from anterosuperior to posteroinferior. The bone bridge is then secured using a bioabsorbable interference screw, placed central to the bone bridge opposing the block to the ipsilateral compartment. The remainder of the meniscus is secured with an inside-out repair technique, working from posterior to anterior through a standard medial or lateral meniscal repair approach. In total, approximately 6 to 10 vertical mattress sutures are placed, and these can be placed both superiorly and inferiorly on the meniscus. Posteriorly, an all-inside suture repair device may be helpful. Finally, the anterior aspect of the meniscus is repaired to the capsule in an open fashion prior to closing the arthrotomy. Sutures are tied with the leg in extension. The meniscal repair incision is closed in a standard fashion using layers.

5. CONCOMITANT PATHOLOGY AND MAT

The presence of concomitant knee pathology in the context of meniscus deficiency is a challenging problem that requires careful attention to all aspects of the underlying condition of the knee. In cases where MAT is indicated, issues of malalignment, cartilage defects, and/or ligamentous instability may also need to be addressed either concomitantly or in staged fashion. For example, medial meniscal deficiency in the setting of varus alignment can be addressed with a concomitant HTO, whereas lateral meniscal deficiency in the setting of valgus malalignment can be addressed with a concomitant DFO. In both cases, the osteotomy corrects an abnormal mechanical axis, offloading the diseased compartment. This accomplishes 2 goals, namely to preserve the new MAT graft and to protect underlying articular cartilage.^22-24 The osteotomy is an important contributor to additional pain relief by offloading the compartment, and clinical studies have demonstrated that failure to address malalignment in the setting of surgical intervention for cartilage and meniscal insufficiency leads to inferior clinical outcomes and poor survival of transplanted tissue.^25-28

Continue to: In a meniscus-deficient patient with chondral lesions...

In a meniscus-deficient patient with chondral lesions (Outerbridge grade 3 or 4), concomitant MAT and cartilage restoration should be considered. Depending on the size and location of the chondral lesion, options include marrow stimulation, autologous chondrocyte implantation, osteochondral autograft transfer, as well as chondral and/or osteochondral allograft transplantation. In a systematic review of concomitant MAT and cartilage restoration procedures, Harris and colleagues²⁵ found that failure rates of the combined surgery were similar to those of either surgery in isolation.

Young athletes sustaining anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears commonly also have meniscal pathology that must be addressed. Most cases are treated with meniscal repair or partial meniscectomy, but occasionally patients present with ACL tear and symptomatic meniscal deficiency. Specifically, MAT survival relies largely on a knee with ligamentous stability, whereas outcomes of ACL reconstruction are improved with intact and functional menisci.²⁹ The surgical technique for MAT is modified slightly in the setting of performing a concomitant ACL reconstruction, with the ACL tibial tunnel drilled to avoid the meniscal bone slot if possible, followed by femoral tunnel creation. Femoral fixation of the ACL graft is accomplished after preparation of the meniscal slot. The meniscal graft is set into place (sutures are not yet tied), and tibial fixation of the ACL graft is performed next. We typically use an Achilles allograft for the ACL reconstruction, with the bone block used for femoral fixation to avoid bony impingement between the MAT bone bridge/block and the ACL graft. With the knee in full extension, the MAT sutures are tied at the conclusion of the surgical procedure. Concomitant MAT and ACL reconstruction has yielded positive long-term clinical outcomes, improved joint stability, and findings similar to historical results of ACL reconstruction or MAT performed in isolation.^30,31

CONCLUSION

When used with the proper indications, MAT has demonstrated the ability to restore function and reduce pain. Successful meniscal transplant requires attention to the patient’s past medical and surgical history. Similarly, care must be taken to address any concomitant knee pathology, such as coronal realignment, ligament reconstruction, or cartilage restoration.

ABSTRACT

This study was performed to compare outcomes of open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous surgical techniques for lateral epicondylitis. We searched PubMed (MEDLINE) for literature published between January 1, 2004 and May 23, 2015 using these key words: lateral epicondylitis AND (surgery OR operative OR surgical OR open OR arthroscopic OR percutaneous). Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes reported in 3 studies using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-tests. Thirty-five studies including 1640 elbows (1055 open, 401 arthroscopic, 184 percutaneous) met the inclusion criteria. There were no differences between groups regarding duration to return to work, complication rate, or patient satisfaction. A greater proportion of patients were pain free in the open group than in the arthroscopic group (70% vs 60%). Despite the absence of a difference among techniques regarding return to work and subjective function, we recommend open débridement as the technique most likely to achieve a pain-free outcome.

Continue to: Lateral epicondylitis affects...

Lateral epicondylitis affects 1% to 3% of adults each year. Although common, symptoms of lateral epicondylitis resolve spontaneously within a year of symptom onset in 80% of cases, and only 3% of patients who seek medical treatment ultimately require surgical intervention within 2 years of symptom onset.¹ Despite a relatively low percentage of patients who require surgery, Sanders and colleagues¹ noted a significant increase in the rate of surgical intervention from 1.1% to 3.2% of cases in the last 15 years. Surgical intervention is generally indicated when pain and functional disability persist after 6 to 12 months of nonsurgical treatment. Traditional surgical treatment involves open release/débridement of the extensor carpi radialis (ECRB) origin; however, with the increasing prevalence of surgical intervention, surgeons have demonstrated a rising interest in less invasive techniques like arthroscopic release/débridement and percutaneous tenotomy as alternatives to traditional open débridement. While favorable results have been reported for all 3 techniques, there is no current consensus regarding the optimal surgical technique. In 2007, Lo and Safran² reported no difference in the results of open, percutaneous, and arthroscopic techniques regarding any outcome measure in a systematic review of 33 papers. We conducted a repeat systematic review of the current literature to update Lo and Safran’s² review and to ascertain if more recent literature demonstrates superiority of 1 technique regarding pain relief, subjective questionnaire data, subjective satisfaction, restoration of strength, and return to work. We hypothesized that return to work would be accelerated, pain decreased, and function improved in the early postoperative period in the arthroscopic and percutaneous groups, but there would be no difference in ultimate pain, functional outcome, or subjective satisfaction.

METHODS

SEARCH STRATEGY AND STUDY SELECTION

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to update the topic of surgical intervention with lateral epicondylitis since the publication of the most recent review by Lo and Safran² in 2007, which included all relevant studies published up to 2004. To include all relevant studies published since that time, we searched PubMed (MEDLINE) for all literature published from January 1, 2004 to May 23, 2015 using the following key words: lateral epicondylitis AND (surgery OR operative OR surgical OR open OR arthroscopic OR percutaneous). General search terms were utilized to avoid unintentional exclusion of relevant studies. Two authors reviewed the abstracts of all resultant citations. Table 1 outlines the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the search. References from all included studies were reviewed for applicable articles that were not captured by the initial broad search strategy. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) trial flow chart shows the study selection algorithm (Figure 1).

Table 1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for the Analyzed Studies

DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from the included studies by 2 reviewers using data abstraction forms. All study, subject, and surgery parameters were collected. The study and subject demographic parameters analyzed included year of publication, level of evidence, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and elbows, gender, age, proportion in whom the dominant extremity was involved, proportion who were laborers, proportion who had a workman’s compensation claim, duration of symptoms prior to surgical intervention, and surgical technique employed (open, arthroscopic, or percutaneous). We recorded the following clinical outcomes: proportion of patients with complete pain relief, proportion who were partially or completely satisfied, proportion who were improved, duration to return to work, grip strength, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and complication rate.

Continue to: Statistical analysis...

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data from all studies were pooled and descriptive statistics were reported as weighted mean ± weighted standard deviation for continuous variables and frequency with percentage for categorical variables. A meta-analysis was performed for all outcome measures that were reported in 3 or more studies within a specific treatment cohort. Data were analyzed using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-tests. Results were considered statistically significant at P < .05.

RESULTS

LITERATURE RESEARCH

Using the aforementioned search strategy, 154 studies were identified. Following application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 35 studies were included in the analysis (Figure 1). One study compared open and percutaneous techniques, and another compared arthroscopic and percutaneous techniques, rendering a total of 19 studies examining open surgical techniques for treatment of lateral epicondylitis,^3-21 12 studies examining arthroscopic techniques,^14,22-32 and 6 studies reporting percutaneous surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis^29,33-37 (Table 2). There was1 level I study (3%), 6 level III studies (17%), and 28 level IV studies (80%).

Table 2. Study Demographic Data for Open, Arthroscopic, and Percutaneous Lateral Epicondylectomy

Abbreviations: AJO, The American Journal of Orthopedics; AJSM, American Journal of Sports Medicine; Arthroscopy, The Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery; CORR, Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research; JHS, Journal of Hand Surgery; JOS, Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery; JSES, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery; KSSTA, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, and Arthroscopy.

SUBJECT DEMOGRAPHICS

The 35 included studies comprised 1579 patients and 1640 elbows. Among these, 1055 (64%) elbows underwent open (O), 401 (25%) underwent arthroscopic (A), and 184 (11%) underwent percutaneous (P) treatment. The average age was 45.7 years, 47% of the patients were male, 43% were laborers, 31% had worker’s compensation claims, and the dominant extremity was involved in 62% of patients. The percutaneous cohort was older than the open cohort (P = 46.9, O = 45.4, A = 45.8; P = .036). The duration of symptoms was shorter in the percutaneous cohort than in the other 2 groups and shorter in the arthroscopic cohort than in the open cohort (P = 8 months, O = 23 months, A = 18 months; P < .001). There were no significant differences between groups regarding gender, occupation, worker’s compensation status, or involvement of the dominant extremity (Table 3).

Table 3. Subject Demographics for Open, Arthroscopic, and Percutaneous Groups

MATA-ANALYSIS CLINICAL OUTCOMES

Clinical outcome results were pooled for all studies reporting the same outcome measure for the same technique (open, arthroscopic, or percutaneous). A meta-analysis was performed for all outcome measures that were reported in a minimum of 3 studies utilizing the same surgical technique (Table 4).

PAIN RELIEF

Thirteen open studies,^{3,5,7,8,11-16,18,19,21} 7 arthroscopic studies^{14,22-24,26,27,31} and 0 percutaneous studies reported the proportion of patients who were pain free at final follow-up. The proportion of patients who were pain free following open débridement was greater than that in the arthroscopic cohort (O = 70%, A = 60%; P = .009) (Table 4).

Continue to: Subjective improvement and satisfaction...

SUBJECTIVE IMPROVEMENT AND SATISFACTION

Nine open studies, 6 arthroscopic studies, and 1 percutaneous study reported the proportion of patients who felt that their condition had been improved as a result of surgery. There was no difference in the proportion of patients who experienced improvement between the open and arthroscopic cohorts. Four open studies,^3,11,12 5 arthroscopic studies,^{22,26,28,29,32} and 2 percutaneous studies^29,36 reported the proportion of patients who were satisfied or partially satisfied with the results of the procedure. There was no difference between the open and arthroscopic groups in the proportion of patients who were satisfied or partially satisfied (Table 4).

RETURN TO WORK

The duration to return to work following surgery was reported in 5 open studies,^4,5,10,13,14 9 arthroscopic studies,^14,23-29,32 and 2 percutaneous studies.^29,36 There was no statistically significant difference between the open and arthroscopic groups with regard to duration to return to work (O = 6.5 weeks, A = 6 weeks; P = .601). The percutaneous technique could not be included in the meta-analysis due to the presence of only 2 studies, but the pooled mean duration to return to work in these 2 studies was 5.5 weeks (Table 4).

GRIP STRENGTH

Postoperative grip strength was reported in 2 open studies,^10,19 4 arthroscopic studies,^28,30,32 and 2 percutaneous studies.^35-36 A meta-analysis could not be performed on all the groups due to the presence of only 2 open and 2 percutaneous studies reporting grip strength. The pooled averages were O = 38.3 kg, A = 34.8 kg, and P = 27.1 kg (Table 4).

DASH SCORE

The postoperative DASH score was reported in 4 open studies,^{4,15,17,19,20} 5 arthroscopic studies,^28-31 and 3 percutaneous studies.^29,33,36 At final follow-up, the mean DASH score was higher in the arthroscopic group than in the open and percutaneous groups (A = 12.8, O = 19.5, P = 25.3; P < .001 for both comparisons), and the mean DASH score was significantly higher in the open group than in the percutaneous group (P = .029). The reporting of DASH scores in the early postoperative period was not sufficiently consistent to allow us to test our hypothesis that there would be early differences in function between groups (Table 4).

VAS PAIN SCORE

Postoperative VAS pain scores were reported in 11 open studies,^{6,8-10,12,15,19-21} 8 arthroscopic studies,^24-26,29-32 and 5 percutaneous studies.^29,33,35-37 At final follow-up, there was a lower mean VAS score in the arthroscopic group than in the open and percutaneous groups (A = 1.1, O = 1.9, and P = 2.5; P < .001 for both comparisons) and a lower mean VAS score in the open group than in the percutaneous group (P = .002) (Table 4). Reporting of VAS scores in the early postoperative period in the included studies wan not sufficiently consistent to allow us to test our hypothesis that there would be early differences in pain between groups.

COMPLICATIONS

The complication rate was reported in 15 open studies, 10 arthroscopic studies, and 3 percutaneous studies. There was no difference in the complication rate between the open and arthroscopic techniques (O = 2.4%, A = 1.9%; P = .629) (Table 4). Complications noted in the open cohort included superficial wound infection (6), hematoma (5), synovial fistula (2), seroma (2), and posterior interosseous nerve palsy (1). Complications noted in the arthroscopic cohort included superficial infection (3), hematoma (1), and transient paresthesia (1). Of note, there were no complications in the percutaneous group.

Continue to: Discussion...

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this review was to determine if definitive evidence suggests that any 1 of open, percutaneous, or arthroscopic surgical treatment is superior to the other 2 for relieving pain, improving functionality, restoring strength, or accelerating return to work. The most striking finding of this study was a significantly higher proportion of patients who were pain free at final follow-up in the open group than in the arthroscopic group (70% vs 60%, P = .009) (Table 4). At final follow-up, there were no significant differences between groups regarding duration to return to work, proportion who were improved, proportion who were satisfied or partially satisfied, and complication rate. Average VAS and DASH scores at final follow-up were lower in the arthroscopic group than in the open and percutaneous groups (Figure 2). However, although the difference between mean DASH scores in the arthroscopic and open groups (6.7 points) was statistically significant, it is likely not clinically significant, as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the DASH score is 10 points, as demonstrated by Sorensen and colleagues.³⁸ Although it has not been specifically defined for lateral epicondylitis, the MCID for VAS pain has been reported in the literature to range from 1.0 to 1.4.^39-40 Therefore, as for the DASH score, the difference witnessed between the open and arthroscopic groups (0.8) is likely not clinically significant. Of note, the differences between values for arthroscopic and percutaneous techniques are greater than the MCID.

In light of a recent increase in the prevalence of surgical intervention for lateral epicondylitis, many authors have promoted arthroscopic and percutaneous techniques as alternatives to traditional open débridement with the goal of achieving the same results with decreased morbidity and accelerated return to work. Given the increased proportion of patients who were pain free at final follow-up in the open cohort, it is our contention that open release/débridement of the common extensor/ECRB origin allows the surgeon to fully appreciate the extent of tendinotic tissue that is contributing to the patient’s symptoms and to address the pathology in its entirety. Other authors have also questioned whether the full extent of extra-articular tendinosis can be accurately identified arthroscopically. Cummins⁴¹ demonstrated, in a series of 18 patients who underwent arthroscopic ECRB débridement, that 6 patients had residual tendinosis upon open evaluation and 10 had residual tendinosis on histologic assessment. Additionally, in the same series, residual tendinopathy was associated with poorer clinical outcomes.

The improved visualization associated with an open technique comes at minimal expense, as the incision was only 1.5 cm to 5 cm in 13 of 15 papers reporting incision length.^{3,4,6,8-11,13,15,18-20} This increased exposure may not translate into increased morbidity, as there was no increase in the duration to return to work nor the complication rate. As a result of the extensive instrumentation necessary for arthroscopic techniques, open techniques also appear to be less expensive. Analyses in the literature have suggested increased expenditures associated with arthroscopic treatment ranging from 23%⁴² to 100%⁴³ greater than those of open treatment.

Although obvious, it should be noted that a percutaneous tenotomy does not permit assessment of the extent of pathologic tendinosis. As a result of an inability to visualize and débride pathologic tissue, percutaneous tenotomy rendered inferior outcomes to open and arthroscopic techniques in terms of both postoperative VAS pain score and DASH score. Nonetheless, it is a relatively rapid and simple technique and resulted in zero complications in 184 elbows. Overall, percutaneous tenotomy appears to be an inferior technique to open and arthroscopic techniques in terms of achieving complete pain relief and optimal functional recovery; however, it may be useful in those who wish to avoid a more invasive intervention.

LIMITATIONS

The most significant limitation of this study was the heterogeneity in the techniques utilized in each group. Among the 19 papers in the open cohort, 11 used techniques aimed at lengthening or release of the extensor origin, 7 performed débridement of tendinotic tissue at the ECRB origin, and 1 compared these approaches. Exposures ranged from 1.5 cm to 8 cm in length, 3 techniques added tendon repair following débridement, and 2 utilized a radiofrequency device.

Among the 12 papers in the arthroscopic cohort, 8 performed arthroscopic (inside-out) débridement of the tendinotic tissue at the ECRB origin, 3 performed arthroscopic release of the ECRB tendon, and 1 performed endoscopic ECRB release in an outside-in fashion. Four techniques added posterior synovial plica excision and 4 added decortication of the lateral epicondyle débridement or release. Some authors advocate for arthroscopic intervention on the grounds that it permits evaluation and correction of other intra-articular pathology. With this in mind, some authors have suggested that a synovial fold (plica) adjacent to the radiocapitellar joint may contribute to lateral elbow pain.^27,44 Nevertheless, in the only comparative trial in the literature, Rhyou and Kim³⁰ demonstrated that excision of posterior synovial fold failed to enhance pain relief or function in a retrospective cohort study comparing arthroscopic débridement with and without plica excision.

Continue to: Some authors advocate...

Some authors advocate decorticating the non-articular, lateral epicondyle with a shaver to stimulate bleeding and promote a healing response. However, 1 study in our review compared arthroscopic ECRB release with and without decortication and found that decortication significantly increased pain up to 4 weeks postoperatively, increased duration to return to work, and did not improve the ultimate clinical result.²⁵ Of note, others have used a similar rationale to advocate drilling the lateral epicondyle when utilizing an open technique. However, Dunn and colleagues⁸ note that they have modified the Nirschl technique to eliminate drilling because they feel it increases postoperative pain and may damage the extensor digitorum communis origin.

Among the 6 papers in the percutaneous tenotomy cohort, 2 performed tenotomy with a hypodermic needle, 2 with a scalpel through a limited incision (0.5 cm-1 cm), 1 using a TX1 tissue removal system (Tenex Health), and 1 with a percutaneous radiofrequency probe. In 3 techniques, ultrasound was used to direct the tenotomy.

The quality of this review is also limited by the studies included for analysis, as with any systematic review. Because 28 of the 35 included studies were classified as evidence level IV, the likelihood of methodological bias is increased. The majority of studies contained ≥1 demonstrable biases, including selection, detection, attrition biases, or a combination. Selection bias is prevalent among predominantly level IV studies, in which the authors have selected their preferred surgical technique. There was heterogeneity in the reporting of preoperative variables and the outcome measures that were utilized. Scoring systems, such as the Nirschl Tennis Elbow Score and the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, would have been valuable in comparing the groups had they been more consistently reported. The heterogeneity in clinical outcome tools and the lack of reported outcome variance or standard deviations prevented a formal meta-analysis of some of these outcome measures. Due to inconsistent reporting, we were also unable to test our hypothesis that there would be less pain and improved function in the arthroscopic and/or percutaneous cohorts in the early postoperative period compared to the open cohort due to the less invasive techniques used. Although the differences in DASH and VAS scores at final follow-up likely did not meet the MCID threshold, these differences may have been greater and more clinically relevant in the early postoperative period.

CONCLUSION

We hypothesized that the arthroscopic and percutaneous groups would experience accelerated return to work and reduced pain in the early postoperative period but no difference in ultimate pain, functional outcome, or subjective satisfaction. There is no difference between open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous surgical treatment for lateral epicondylitis regarding return to work and subjective satisfaction; however, open treatment led to a greater percentage of patients being pain free at final follow-up. While arthroscopic treatment led to better pain and functional scores at final follow-up, the absolute differences were quite small and likely not clinically significant. In light of the available evidence, we recommend open débridement as the best means of minimizing cost and achieving a pain-free outcome in the long term. For future investigators, it would be useful to perform a randomized clinical study directly comparing open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous techniques, including assessment of pain and functional scores in the early postoperative period, and to further evaluate differences in cost among the various techniques.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

ABSTRACT

This study was performed to compare outcomes of open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous surgical techniques for lateral epicondylitis. We searched PubMed (MEDLINE) for literature published between January 1, 2004 and May 23, 2015 using these key words: lateral epicondylitis AND (surgery OR operative OR surgical OR open OR arthroscopic OR percutaneous). Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes reported in 3 studies using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-tests. Thirty-five studies including 1640 elbows (1055 open, 401 arthroscopic, 184 percutaneous) met the inclusion criteria. There were no differences between groups regarding duration to return to work, complication rate, or patient satisfaction. A greater proportion of patients were pain free in the open group than in the arthroscopic group (70% vs 60%). Despite the absence of a difference among techniques regarding return to work and subjective function, we recommend open débridement as the technique most likely to achieve a pain-free outcome.

Continue to: Lateral epicondylitis affects...

Lateral epicondylitis affects 1% to 3% of adults each year. Although common, symptoms of lateral epicondylitis resolve spontaneously within a year of symptom onset in 80% of cases, and only 3% of patients who seek medical treatment ultimately require surgical intervention within 2 years of symptom onset.¹ Despite a relatively low percentage of patients who require surgery, Sanders and colleagues¹ noted a significant increase in the rate of surgical intervention from 1.1% to 3.2% of cases in the last 15 years. Surgical intervention is generally indicated when pain and functional disability persist after 6 to 12 months of nonsurgical treatment. Traditional surgical treatment involves open release/débridement of the extensor carpi radialis (ECRB) origin; however, with the increasing prevalence of surgical intervention, surgeons have demonstrated a rising interest in less invasive techniques like arthroscopic release/débridement and percutaneous tenotomy as alternatives to traditional open débridement. While favorable results have been reported for all 3 techniques, there is no current consensus regarding the optimal surgical technique. In 2007, Lo and Safran² reported no difference in the results of open, percutaneous, and arthroscopic techniques regarding any outcome measure in a systematic review of 33 papers. We conducted a repeat systematic review of the current literature to update Lo and Safran’s² review and to ascertain if more recent literature demonstrates superiority of 1 technique regarding pain relief, subjective questionnaire data, subjective satisfaction, restoration of strength, and return to work. We hypothesized that return to work would be accelerated, pain decreased, and function improved in the early postoperative period in the arthroscopic and percutaneous groups, but there would be no difference in ultimate pain, functional outcome, or subjective satisfaction.

METHODS

SEARCH STRATEGY AND STUDY SELECTION

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to update the topic of surgical intervention with lateral epicondylitis since the publication of the most recent review by Lo and Safran² in 2007, which included all relevant studies published up to 2004. To include all relevant studies published since that time, we searched PubMed (MEDLINE) for all literature published from January 1, 2004 to May 23, 2015 using the following key words: lateral epicondylitis AND (surgery OR operative OR surgical OR open OR arthroscopic OR percutaneous). General search terms were utilized to avoid unintentional exclusion of relevant studies. Two authors reviewed the abstracts of all resultant citations. Table 1 outlines the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the search. References from all included studies were reviewed for applicable articles that were not captured by the initial broad search strategy. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) trial flow chart shows the study selection algorithm (Figure 1).

Table 1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for the Analyzed Studies

DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from the included studies by 2 reviewers using data abstraction forms. All study, subject, and surgery parameters were collected. The study and subject demographic parameters analyzed included year of publication, level of evidence, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and elbows, gender, age, proportion in whom the dominant extremity was involved, proportion who were laborers, proportion who had a workman’s compensation claim, duration of symptoms prior to surgical intervention, and surgical technique employed (open, arthroscopic, or percutaneous). We recorded the following clinical outcomes: proportion of patients with complete pain relief, proportion who were partially or completely satisfied, proportion who were improved, duration to return to work, grip strength, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and complication rate.

Continue to: Statistical analysis...

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data from all studies were pooled and descriptive statistics were reported as weighted mean ± weighted standard deviation for continuous variables and frequency with percentage for categorical variables. A meta-analysis was performed for all outcome measures that were reported in 3 or more studies within a specific treatment cohort. Data were analyzed using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-tests. Results were considered statistically significant at P < .05.

RESULTS

LITERATURE RESEARCH

Using the aforementioned search strategy, 154 studies were identified. Following application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 35 studies were included in the analysis (Figure 1). One study compared open and percutaneous techniques, and another compared arthroscopic and percutaneous techniques, rendering a total of 19 studies examining open surgical techniques for treatment of lateral epicondylitis,^3-21 12 studies examining arthroscopic techniques,^14,22-32 and 6 studies reporting percutaneous surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis^29,33-37 (Table 2). There was1 level I study (3%), 6 level III studies (17%), and 28 level IV studies (80%).

Table 2. Study Demographic Data for Open, Arthroscopic, and Percutaneous Lateral Epicondylectomy

Abbreviations: AJO, The American Journal of Orthopedics; AJSM, American Journal of Sports Medicine; Arthroscopy, The Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery; CORR, Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research; JHS, Journal of Hand Surgery; JOS, Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery; JSES, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery; KSSTA, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, and Arthroscopy.

SUBJECT DEMOGRAPHICS

The 35 included studies comprised 1579 patients and 1640 elbows. Among these, 1055 (64%) elbows underwent open (O), 401 (25%) underwent arthroscopic (A), and 184 (11%) underwent percutaneous (P) treatment. The average age was 45.7 years, 47% of the patients were male, 43% were laborers, 31% had worker’s compensation claims, and the dominant extremity was involved in 62% of patients. The percutaneous cohort was older than the open cohort (P = 46.9, O = 45.4, A = 45.8; P = .036). The duration of symptoms was shorter in the percutaneous cohort than in the other 2 groups and shorter in the arthroscopic cohort than in the open cohort (P = 8 months, O = 23 months, A = 18 months; P < .001). There were no significant differences between groups regarding gender, occupation, worker’s compensation status, or involvement of the dominant extremity (Table 3).

Table 3. Subject Demographics for Open, Arthroscopic, and Percutaneous Groups

MATA-ANALYSIS CLINICAL OUTCOMES

Clinical outcome results were pooled for all studies reporting the same outcome measure for the same technique (open, arthroscopic, or percutaneous). A meta-analysis was performed for all outcome measures that were reported in a minimum of 3 studies utilizing the same surgical technique (Table 4).

PAIN RELIEF

Thirteen open studies,^{3,5,7,8,11-16,18,19,21} 7 arthroscopic studies^{14,22-24,26,27,31} and 0 percutaneous studies reported the proportion of patients who were pain free at final follow-up. The proportion of patients who were pain free following open débridement was greater than that in the arthroscopic cohort (O = 70%, A = 60%; P = .009) (Table 4).

Continue to: Subjective improvement and satisfaction...

SUBJECTIVE IMPROVEMENT AND SATISFACTION

Nine open studies, 6 arthroscopic studies, and 1 percutaneous study reported the proportion of patients who felt that their condition had been improved as a result of surgery. There was no difference in the proportion of patients who experienced improvement between the open and arthroscopic cohorts. Four open studies,^3,11,12 5 arthroscopic studies,^{22,26,28,29,32} and 2 percutaneous studies^29,36 reported the proportion of patients who were satisfied or partially satisfied with the results of the procedure. There was no difference between the open and arthroscopic groups in the proportion of patients who were satisfied or partially satisfied (Table 4).

RETURN TO WORK

The duration to return to work following surgery was reported in 5 open studies,^4,5,10,13,14 9 arthroscopic studies,^14,23-29,32 and 2 percutaneous studies.^29,36 There was no statistically significant difference between the open and arthroscopic groups with regard to duration to return to work (O = 6.5 weeks, A = 6 weeks; P = .601). The percutaneous technique could not be included in the meta-analysis due to the presence of only 2 studies, but the pooled mean duration to return to work in these 2 studies was 5.5 weeks (Table 4).

GRIP STRENGTH

Postoperative grip strength was reported in 2 open studies,^10,19 4 arthroscopic studies,^28,30,32 and 2 percutaneous studies.^35-36 A meta-analysis could not be performed on all the groups due to the presence of only 2 open and 2 percutaneous studies reporting grip strength. The pooled averages were O = 38.3 kg, A = 34.8 kg, and P = 27.1 kg (Table 4).

DASH SCORE

The postoperative DASH score was reported in 4 open studies,^{4,15,17,19,20} 5 arthroscopic studies,^28-31 and 3 percutaneous studies.^29,33,36 At final follow-up, the mean DASH score was higher in the arthroscopic group than in the open and percutaneous groups (A = 12.8, O = 19.5, P = 25.3; P < .001 for both comparisons), and the mean DASH score was significantly higher in the open group than in the percutaneous group (P = .029). The reporting of DASH scores in the early postoperative period was not sufficiently consistent to allow us to test our hypothesis that there would be early differences in function between groups (Table 4).

VAS PAIN SCORE

Postoperative VAS pain scores were reported in 11 open studies,^{6,8-10,12,15,19-21} 8 arthroscopic studies,^24-26,29-32 and 5 percutaneous studies.^29,33,35-37 At final follow-up, there was a lower mean VAS score in the arthroscopic group than in the open and percutaneous groups (A = 1.1, O = 1.9, and P = 2.5; P < .001 for both comparisons) and a lower mean VAS score in the open group than in the percutaneous group (P = .002) (Table 4). Reporting of VAS scores in the early postoperative period in the included studies wan not sufficiently consistent to allow us to test our hypothesis that there would be early differences in pain between groups.

COMPLICATIONS

The complication rate was reported in 15 open studies, 10 arthroscopic studies, and 3 percutaneous studies. There was no difference in the complication rate between the open and arthroscopic techniques (O = 2.4%, A = 1.9%; P = .629) (Table 4). Complications noted in the open cohort included superficial wound infection (6), hematoma (5), synovial fistula (2), seroma (2), and posterior interosseous nerve palsy (1). Complications noted in the arthroscopic cohort included superficial infection (3), hematoma (1), and transient paresthesia (1). Of note, there were no complications in the percutaneous group.

Continue to: Discussion...

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this review was to determine if definitive evidence suggests that any 1 of open, percutaneous, or arthroscopic surgical treatment is superior to the other 2 for relieving pain, improving functionality, restoring strength, or accelerating return to work. The most striking finding of this study was a significantly higher proportion of patients who were pain free at final follow-up in the open group than in the arthroscopic group (70% vs 60%, P = .009) (Table 4). At final follow-up, there were no significant differences between groups regarding duration to return to work, proportion who were improved, proportion who were satisfied or partially satisfied, and complication rate. Average VAS and DASH scores at final follow-up were lower in the arthroscopic group than in the open and percutaneous groups (Figure 2). However, although the difference between mean DASH scores in the arthroscopic and open groups (6.7 points) was statistically significant, it is likely not clinically significant, as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the DASH score is 10 points, as demonstrated by Sorensen and colleagues.³⁸ Although it has not been specifically defined for lateral epicondylitis, the MCID for VAS pain has been reported in the literature to range from 1.0 to 1.4.^39-40 Therefore, as for the DASH score, the difference witnessed between the open and arthroscopic groups (0.8) is likely not clinically significant. Of note, the differences between values for arthroscopic and percutaneous techniques are greater than the MCID.

In light of a recent increase in the prevalence of surgical intervention for lateral epicondylitis, many authors have promoted arthroscopic and percutaneous techniques as alternatives to traditional open débridement with the goal of achieving the same results with decreased morbidity and accelerated return to work. Given the increased proportion of patients who were pain free at final follow-up in the open cohort, it is our contention that open release/débridement of the common extensor/ECRB origin allows the surgeon to fully appreciate the extent of tendinotic tissue that is contributing to the patient’s symptoms and to address the pathology in its entirety. Other authors have also questioned whether the full extent of extra-articular tendinosis can be accurately identified arthroscopically. Cummins⁴¹ demonstrated, in a series of 18 patients who underwent arthroscopic ECRB débridement, that 6 patients had residual tendinosis upon open evaluation and 10 had residual tendinosis on histologic assessment. Additionally, in the same series, residual tendinopathy was associated with poorer clinical outcomes.

The improved visualization associated with an open technique comes at minimal expense, as the incision was only 1.5 cm to 5 cm in 13 of 15 papers reporting incision length.^{3,4,6,8-11,13,15,18-20} This increased exposure may not translate into increased morbidity, as there was no increase in the duration to return to work nor the complication rate. As a result of the extensive instrumentation necessary for arthroscopic techniques, open techniques also appear to be less expensive. Analyses in the literature have suggested increased expenditures associated with arthroscopic treatment ranging from 23%⁴² to 100%⁴³ greater than those of open treatment.

Although obvious, it should be noted that a percutaneous tenotomy does not permit assessment of the extent of pathologic tendinosis. As a result of an inability to visualize and débride pathologic tissue, percutaneous tenotomy rendered inferior outcomes to open and arthroscopic techniques in terms of both postoperative VAS pain score and DASH score. Nonetheless, it is a relatively rapid and simple technique and resulted in zero complications in 184 elbows. Overall, percutaneous tenotomy appears to be an inferior technique to open and arthroscopic techniques in terms of achieving complete pain relief and optimal functional recovery; however, it may be useful in those who wish to avoid a more invasive intervention.

LIMITATIONS

The most significant limitation of this study was the heterogeneity in the techniques utilized in each group. Among the 19 papers in the open cohort, 11 used techniques aimed at lengthening or release of the extensor origin, 7 performed débridement of tendinotic tissue at the ECRB origin, and 1 compared these approaches. Exposures ranged from 1.5 cm to 8 cm in length, 3 techniques added tendon repair following débridement, and 2 utilized a radiofrequency device.

Among the 12 papers in the arthroscopic cohort, 8 performed arthroscopic (inside-out) débridement of the tendinotic tissue at the ECRB origin, 3 performed arthroscopic release of the ECRB tendon, and 1 performed endoscopic ECRB release in an outside-in fashion. Four techniques added posterior synovial plica excision and 4 added decortication of the lateral epicondyle débridement or release. Some authors advocate for arthroscopic intervention on the grounds that it permits evaluation and correction of other intra-articular pathology. With this in mind, some authors have suggested that a synovial fold (plica) adjacent to the radiocapitellar joint may contribute to lateral elbow pain.^27,44 Nevertheless, in the only comparative trial in the literature, Rhyou and Kim³⁰ demonstrated that excision of posterior synovial fold failed to enhance pain relief or function in a retrospective cohort study comparing arthroscopic débridement with and without plica excision.

Continue to: Some authors advocate...

Some authors advocate decorticating the non-articular, lateral epicondyle with a shaver to stimulate bleeding and promote a healing response. However, 1 study in our review compared arthroscopic ECRB release with and without decortication and found that decortication significantly increased pain up to 4 weeks postoperatively, increased duration to return to work, and did not improve the ultimate clinical result.²⁵ Of note, others have used a similar rationale to advocate drilling the lateral epicondyle when utilizing an open technique. However, Dunn and colleagues⁸ note that they have modified the Nirschl technique to eliminate drilling because they feel it increases postoperative pain and may damage the extensor digitorum communis origin.

Among the 6 papers in the percutaneous tenotomy cohort, 2 performed tenotomy with a hypodermic needle, 2 with a scalpel through a limited incision (0.5 cm-1 cm), 1 using a TX1 tissue removal system (Tenex Health), and 1 with a percutaneous radiofrequency probe. In 3 techniques, ultrasound was used to direct the tenotomy.

The quality of this review is also limited by the studies included for analysis, as with any systematic review. Because 28 of the 35 included studies were classified as evidence level IV, the likelihood of methodological bias is increased. The majority of studies contained ≥1 demonstrable biases, including selection, detection, attrition biases, or a combination. Selection bias is prevalent among predominantly level IV studies, in which the authors have selected their preferred surgical technique. There was heterogeneity in the reporting of preoperative variables and the outcome measures that were utilized. Scoring systems, such as the Nirschl Tennis Elbow Score and the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, would have been valuable in comparing the groups had they been more consistently reported. The heterogeneity in clinical outcome tools and the lack of reported outcome variance or standard deviations prevented a formal meta-analysis of some of these outcome measures. Due to inconsistent reporting, we were also unable to test our hypothesis that there would be less pain and improved function in the arthroscopic and/or percutaneous cohorts in the early postoperative period compared to the open cohort due to the less invasive techniques used. Although the differences in DASH and VAS scores at final follow-up likely did not meet the MCID threshold, these differences may have been greater and more clinically relevant in the early postoperative period.

CONCLUSION

We hypothesized that the arthroscopic and percutaneous groups would experience accelerated return to work and reduced pain in the early postoperative period but no difference in ultimate pain, functional outcome, or subjective satisfaction. There is no difference between open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous surgical treatment for lateral epicondylitis regarding return to work and subjective satisfaction; however, open treatment led to a greater percentage of patients being pain free at final follow-up. While arthroscopic treatment led to better pain and functional scores at final follow-up, the absolute differences were quite small and likely not clinically significant. In light of the available evidence, we recommend open débridement as the best means of minimizing cost and achieving a pain-free outcome in the long term. For future investigators, it would be useful to perform a randomized clinical study directly comparing open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous techniques, including assessment of pain and functional scores in the early postoperative period, and to further evaluate differences in cost among the various techniques.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

ABSTRACT

This study was performed to compare outcomes of open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous surgical techniques for lateral epicondylitis. We searched PubMed (MEDLINE) for literature published between January 1, 2004 and May 23, 2015 using these key words: lateral epicondylitis AND (surgery OR operative OR surgical OR open OR arthroscopic OR percutaneous). Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes reported in 3 studies using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-tests. Thirty-five studies including 1640 elbows (1055 open, 401 arthroscopic, 184 percutaneous) met the inclusion criteria. There were no differences between groups regarding duration to return to work, complication rate, or patient satisfaction. A greater proportion of patients were pain free in the open group than in the arthroscopic group (70% vs 60%). Despite the absence of a difference among techniques regarding return to work and subjective function, we recommend open débridement as the technique most likely to achieve a pain-free outcome.

Continue to: Lateral epicondylitis affects...

Lateral epicondylitis affects 1% to 3% of adults each year. Although common, symptoms of lateral epicondylitis resolve spontaneously within a year of symptom onset in 80% of cases, and only 3% of patients who seek medical treatment ultimately require surgical intervention within 2 years of symptom onset.¹ Despite a relatively low percentage of patients who require surgery, Sanders and colleagues¹ noted a significant increase in the rate of surgical intervention from 1.1% to 3.2% of cases in the last 15 years. Surgical intervention is generally indicated when pain and functional disability persist after 6 to 12 months of nonsurgical treatment. Traditional surgical treatment involves open release/débridement of the extensor carpi radialis (ECRB) origin; however, with the increasing prevalence of surgical intervention, surgeons have demonstrated a rising interest in less invasive techniques like arthroscopic release/débridement and percutaneous tenotomy as alternatives to traditional open débridement. While favorable results have been reported for all 3 techniques, there is no current consensus regarding the optimal surgical technique. In 2007, Lo and Safran² reported no difference in the results of open, percutaneous, and arthroscopic techniques regarding any outcome measure in a systematic review of 33 papers. We conducted a repeat systematic review of the current literature to update Lo and Safran’s² review and to ascertain if more recent literature demonstrates superiority of 1 technique regarding pain relief, subjective questionnaire data, subjective satisfaction, restoration of strength, and return to work. We hypothesized that return to work would be accelerated, pain decreased, and function improved in the early postoperative period in the arthroscopic and percutaneous groups, but there would be no difference in ultimate pain, functional outcome, or subjective satisfaction.

METHODS

SEARCH STRATEGY AND STUDY SELECTION

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to update the topic of surgical intervention with lateral epicondylitis since the publication of the most recent review by Lo and Safran² in 2007, which included all relevant studies published up to 2004. To include all relevant studies published since that time, we searched PubMed (MEDLINE) for all literature published from January 1, 2004 to May 23, 2015 using the following key words: lateral epicondylitis AND (surgery OR operative OR surgical OR open OR arthroscopic OR percutaneous). General search terms were utilized to avoid unintentional exclusion of relevant studies. Two authors reviewed the abstracts of all resultant citations. Table 1 outlines the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the search. References from all included studies were reviewed for applicable articles that were not captured by the initial broad search strategy. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) trial flow chart shows the study selection algorithm (Figure 1).

Table 1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for the Analyzed Studies

DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted from the included studies by 2 reviewers using data abstraction forms. All study, subject, and surgery parameters were collected. The study and subject demographic parameters analyzed included year of publication, level of evidence, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and elbows, gender, age, proportion in whom the dominant extremity was involved, proportion who were laborers, proportion who had a workman’s compensation claim, duration of symptoms prior to surgical intervention, and surgical technique employed (open, arthroscopic, or percutaneous). We recorded the following clinical outcomes: proportion of patients with complete pain relief, proportion who were partially or completely satisfied, proportion who were improved, duration to return to work, grip strength, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and complication rate.

Continue to: Statistical analysis...

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data from all studies were pooled and descriptive statistics were reported as weighted mean ± weighted standard deviation for continuous variables and frequency with percentage for categorical variables. A meta-analysis was performed for all outcome measures that were reported in 3 or more studies within a specific treatment cohort. Data were analyzed using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-tests. Results were considered statistically significant at P < .05.

RESULTS

LITERATURE RESEARCH

Using the aforementioned search strategy, 154 studies were identified. Following application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 35 studies were included in the analysis (Figure 1). One study compared open and percutaneous techniques, and another compared arthroscopic and percutaneous techniques, rendering a total of 19 studies examining open surgical techniques for treatment of lateral epicondylitis,^3-21 12 studies examining arthroscopic techniques,^14,22-32 and 6 studies reporting percutaneous surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis^29,33-37 (Table 2). There was1 level I study (3%), 6 level III studies (17%), and 28 level IV studies (80%).

Table 2. Study Demographic Data for Open, Arthroscopic, and Percutaneous Lateral Epicondylectomy

Abbreviations: AJO, The American Journal of Orthopedics; AJSM, American Journal of Sports Medicine; Arthroscopy, The Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery; CORR, Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research; JHS, Journal of Hand Surgery; JOS, Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery; JSES, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery; KSSTA, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, and Arthroscopy.

SUBJECT DEMOGRAPHICS

The 35 included studies comprised 1579 patients and 1640 elbows. Among these, 1055 (64%) elbows underwent open (O), 401 (25%) underwent arthroscopic (A), and 184 (11%) underwent percutaneous (P) treatment. The average age was 45.7 years, 47% of the patients were male, 43% were laborers, 31% had worker’s compensation claims, and the dominant extremity was involved in 62% of patients. The percutaneous cohort was older than the open cohort (P = 46.9, O = 45.4, A = 45.8; P = .036). The duration of symptoms was shorter in the percutaneous cohort than in the other 2 groups and shorter in the arthroscopic cohort than in the open cohort (P = 8 months, O = 23 months, A = 18 months; P < .001). There were no significant differences between groups regarding gender, occupation, worker’s compensation status, or involvement of the dominant extremity (Table 3).

Table 3. Subject Demographics for Open, Arthroscopic, and Percutaneous Groups

MATA-ANALYSIS CLINICAL OUTCOMES

Clinical outcome results were pooled for all studies reporting the same outcome measure for the same technique (open, arthroscopic, or percutaneous). A meta-analysis was performed for all outcome measures that were reported in a minimum of 3 studies utilizing the same surgical technique (Table 4).

PAIN RELIEF

Thirteen open studies,^{3,5,7,8,11-16,18,19,21} 7 arthroscopic studies^{14,22-24,26,27,31} and 0 percutaneous studies reported the proportion of patients who were pain free at final follow-up. The proportion of patients who were pain free following open débridement was greater than that in the arthroscopic cohort (O = 70%, A = 60%; P = .009) (Table 4).

Continue to: Subjective improvement and satisfaction...

SUBJECTIVE IMPROVEMENT AND SATISFACTION

Nine open studies, 6 arthroscopic studies, and 1 percutaneous study reported the proportion of patients who felt that their condition had been improved as a result of surgery. There was no difference in the proportion of patients who experienced improvement between the open and arthroscopic cohorts. Four open studies,^3,11,12 5 arthroscopic studies,^{22,26,28,29,32} and 2 percutaneous studies^29,36 reported the proportion of patients who were satisfied or partially satisfied with the results of the procedure. There was no difference between the open and arthroscopic groups in the proportion of patients who were satisfied or partially satisfied (Table 4).

RETURN TO WORK

The duration to return to work following surgery was reported in 5 open studies,^4,5,10,13,14 9 arthroscopic studies,^14,23-29,32 and 2 percutaneous studies.^29,36 There was no statistically significant difference between the open and arthroscopic groups with regard to duration to return to work (O = 6.5 weeks, A = 6 weeks; P = .601). The percutaneous technique could not be included in the meta-analysis due to the presence of only 2 studies, but the pooled mean duration to return to work in these 2 studies was 5.5 weeks (Table 4).

GRIP STRENGTH

Postoperative grip strength was reported in 2 open studies,^10,19 4 arthroscopic studies,^28,30,32 and 2 percutaneous studies.^35-36 A meta-analysis could not be performed on all the groups due to the presence of only 2 open and 2 percutaneous studies reporting grip strength. The pooled averages were O = 38.3 kg, A = 34.8 kg, and P = 27.1 kg (Table 4).

DASH SCORE

The postoperative DASH score was reported in 4 open studies,^{4,15,17,19,20} 5 arthroscopic studies,^28-31 and 3 percutaneous studies.^29,33,36 At final follow-up, the mean DASH score was higher in the arthroscopic group than in the open and percutaneous groups (A = 12.8, O = 19.5, P = 25.3; P < .001 for both comparisons), and the mean DASH score was significantly higher in the open group than in the percutaneous group (P = .029). The reporting of DASH scores in the early postoperative period was not sufficiently consistent to allow us to test our hypothesis that there would be early differences in function between groups (Table 4).

VAS PAIN SCORE

Postoperative VAS pain scores were reported in 11 open studies,^{6,8-10,12,15,19-21} 8 arthroscopic studies,^24-26,29-32 and 5 percutaneous studies.^29,33,35-37 At final follow-up, there was a lower mean VAS score in the arthroscopic group than in the open and percutaneous groups (A = 1.1, O = 1.9, and P = 2.5; P < .001 for both comparisons) and a lower mean VAS score in the open group than in the percutaneous group (P = .002) (Table 4). Reporting of VAS scores in the early postoperative period in the included studies wan not sufficiently consistent to allow us to test our hypothesis that there would be early differences in pain between groups.

COMPLICATIONS

The complication rate was reported in 15 open studies, 10 arthroscopic studies, and 3 percutaneous studies. There was no difference in the complication rate between the open and arthroscopic techniques (O = 2.4%, A = 1.9%; P = .629) (Table 4). Complications noted in the open cohort included superficial wound infection (6), hematoma (5), synovial fistula (2), seroma (2), and posterior interosseous nerve palsy (1). Complications noted in the arthroscopic cohort included superficial infection (3), hematoma (1), and transient paresthesia (1). Of note, there were no complications in the percutaneous group.

Continue to: Discussion...

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this review was to determine if definitive evidence suggests that any 1 of open, percutaneous, or arthroscopic surgical treatment is superior to the other 2 for relieving pain, improving functionality, restoring strength, or accelerating return to work. The most striking finding of this study was a significantly higher proportion of patients who were pain free at final follow-up in the open group than in the arthroscopic group (70% vs 60%, P = .009) (Table 4). At final follow-up, there were no significant differences between groups regarding duration to return to work, proportion who were improved, proportion who were satisfied or partially satisfied, and complication rate. Average VAS and DASH scores at final follow-up were lower in the arthroscopic group than in the open and percutaneous groups (Figure 2). However, although the difference between mean DASH scores in the arthroscopic and open groups (6.7 points) was statistically significant, it is likely not clinically significant, as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the DASH score is 10 points, as demonstrated by Sorensen and colleagues.³⁸ Although it has not been specifically defined for lateral epicondylitis, the MCID for VAS pain has been reported in the literature to range from 1.0 to 1.4.^39-40 Therefore, as for the DASH score, the difference witnessed between the open and arthroscopic groups (0.8) is likely not clinically significant. Of note, the differences between values for arthroscopic and percutaneous techniques are greater than the MCID.

In light of a recent increase in the prevalence of surgical intervention for lateral epicondylitis, many authors have promoted arthroscopic and percutaneous techniques as alternatives to traditional open débridement with the goal of achieving the same results with decreased morbidity and accelerated return to work. Given the increased proportion of patients who were pain free at final follow-up in the open cohort, it is our contention that open release/débridement of the common extensor/ECRB origin allows the surgeon to fully appreciate the extent of tendinotic tissue that is contributing to the patient’s symptoms and to address the pathology in its entirety. Other authors have also questioned whether the full extent of extra-articular tendinosis can be accurately identified arthroscopically. Cummins⁴¹ demonstrated, in a series of 18 patients who underwent arthroscopic ECRB débridement, that 6 patients had residual tendinosis upon open evaluation and 10 had residual tendinosis on histologic assessment. Additionally, in the same series, residual tendinopathy was associated with poorer clinical outcomes.

The improved visualization associated with an open technique comes at minimal expense, as the incision was only 1.5 cm to 5 cm in 13 of 15 papers reporting incision length.^{3,4,6,8-11,13,15,18-20} This increased exposure may not translate into increased morbidity, as there was no increase in the duration to return to work nor the complication rate. As a result of the extensive instrumentation necessary for arthroscopic techniques, open techniques also appear to be less expensive. Analyses in the literature have suggested increased expenditures associated with arthroscopic treatment ranging from 23%⁴² to 100%⁴³ greater than those of open treatment.

Although obvious, it should be noted that a percutaneous tenotomy does not permit assessment of the extent of pathologic tendinosis. As a result of an inability to visualize and débride pathologic tissue, percutaneous tenotomy rendered inferior outcomes to open and arthroscopic techniques in terms of both postoperative VAS pain score and DASH score. Nonetheless, it is a relatively rapid and simple technique and resulted in zero complications in 184 elbows. Overall, percutaneous tenotomy appears to be an inferior technique to open and arthroscopic techniques in terms of achieving complete pain relief and optimal functional recovery; however, it may be useful in those who wish to avoid a more invasive intervention.

LIMITATIONS

The most significant limitation of this study was the heterogeneity in the techniques utilized in each group. Among the 19 papers in the open cohort, 11 used techniques aimed at lengthening or release of the extensor origin, 7 performed débridement of tendinotic tissue at the ECRB origin, and 1 compared these approaches. Exposures ranged from 1.5 cm to 8 cm in length, 3 techniques added tendon repair following débridement, and 2 utilized a radiofrequency device.

Among the 12 papers in the arthroscopic cohort, 8 performed arthroscopic (inside-out) débridement of the tendinotic tissue at the ECRB origin, 3 performed arthroscopic release of the ECRB tendon, and 1 performed endoscopic ECRB release in an outside-in fashion. Four techniques added posterior synovial plica excision and 4 added decortication of the lateral epicondyle débridement or release. Some authors advocate for arthroscopic intervention on the grounds that it permits evaluation and correction of other intra-articular pathology. With this in mind, some authors have suggested that a synovial fold (plica) adjacent to the radiocapitellar joint may contribute to lateral elbow pain.^27,44 Nevertheless, in the only comparative trial in the literature, Rhyou and Kim³⁰ demonstrated that excision of posterior synovial fold failed to enhance pain relief or function in a retrospective cohort study comparing arthroscopic débridement with and without plica excision.

Continue to: Some authors advocate...

Some authors advocate decorticating the non-articular, lateral epicondyle with a shaver to stimulate bleeding and promote a healing response. However, 1 study in our review compared arthroscopic ECRB release with and without decortication and found that decortication significantly increased pain up to 4 weeks postoperatively, increased duration to return to work, and did not improve the ultimate clinical result.²⁵ Of note, others have used a similar rationale to advocate drilling the lateral epicondyle when utilizing an open technique. However, Dunn and colleagues⁸ note that they have modified the Nirschl technique to eliminate drilling because they feel it increases postoperative pain and may damage the extensor digitorum communis origin.

Among the 6 papers in the percutaneous tenotomy cohort, 2 performed tenotomy with a hypodermic needle, 2 with a scalpel through a limited incision (0.5 cm-1 cm), 1 using a TX1 tissue removal system (Tenex Health), and 1 with a percutaneous radiofrequency probe. In 3 techniques, ultrasound was used to direct the tenotomy.

The quality of this review is also limited by the studies included for analysis, as with any systematic review. Because 28 of the 35 included studies were classified as evidence level IV, the likelihood of methodological bias is increased. The majority of studies contained ≥1 demonstrable biases, including selection, detection, attrition biases, or a combination. Selection bias is prevalent among predominantly level IV studies, in which the authors have selected their preferred surgical technique. There was heterogeneity in the reporting of preoperative variables and the outcome measures that were utilized. Scoring systems, such as the Nirschl Tennis Elbow Score and the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, would have been valuable in comparing the groups had they been more consistently reported. The heterogeneity in clinical outcome tools and the lack of reported outcome variance or standard deviations prevented a formal meta-analysis of some of these outcome measures. Due to inconsistent reporting, we were also unable to test our hypothesis that there would be less pain and improved function in the arthroscopic and/or percutaneous cohorts in the early postoperative period compared to the open cohort due to the less invasive techniques used. Although the differences in DASH and VAS scores at final follow-up likely did not meet the MCID threshold, these differences may have been greater and more clinically relevant in the early postoperative period.

CONCLUSION

We hypothesized that the arthroscopic and percutaneous groups would experience accelerated return to work and reduced pain in the early postoperative period but no difference in ultimate pain, functional outcome, or subjective satisfaction. There is no difference between open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous surgical treatment for lateral epicondylitis regarding return to work and subjective satisfaction; however, open treatment led to a greater percentage of patients being pain free at final follow-up. While arthroscopic treatment led to better pain and functional scores at final follow-up, the absolute differences were quite small and likely not clinically significant. In light of the available evidence, we recommend open débridement as the best means of minimizing cost and achieving a pain-free outcome in the long term. For future investigators, it would be useful to perform a randomized clinical study directly comparing open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous techniques, including assessment of pain and functional scores in the early postoperative period, and to further evaluate differences in cost among the various techniques.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.