ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes After Different Surgical Approaches for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07495254 (Effectiveness of Combined Super Inductive System), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Effectiveness of Combined Super Inductive System (SIS) Therapy With Therapeutic Physical Therapy Exercise and Health Education in Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Kinesio Taping, Wrist Splinting, and Epicondylitis Bandaging in Managing Lateral Epicondylitis: A Prospective Comparative Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Trial
- Comparative clinical outcomes of monotherapy and combined conservative treatment strategies in lateral epicondylitis: a retrospective cohort study of 420 patients.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Article
- Surgical management of recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis: indications, techniques, and outcomes.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026Article
- Dual pathology in lateral elbow pain: the overlooked role of posterior interosseous nerve compression in refractory lateral epicondylitis.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Data Mining of Acupuncture Prescriptions for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Literature-Based Analysis of Acupoint Patterns and Parameters.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Comparison of the clinical results of arthroscopic release and open release in the surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Effects of Autologous Tenocyte Injection for Overuse and Degenerative Tendinopathies: A Systematic Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is one of the most common causes of lateral elbow pain. When nonoperative treatment fails, 1 of the 3 surgical approaches-open, percutaneous, or arthroscopic-is used. However, determining which approach has the superior clinical outcome remains controversial. Purpose: To review the outcomes of different operative modalities for LE qualitatively and quantitatively. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: This review was performed and reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published in PubMed, Medline (via EBSCO), and ScienceDirect databases that treated LE with open, percutaneous, or arthroscopic approaches with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score. The primary outcome was the success rate of each operative treatment approach-open, percutaneous, and arthroscopic. Results: From an initial search result of 603 studies, 43 studies (n = 1941 elbows) were ultimately included. The arthroscopic approach had the highest success rate (91.9% [95% CI, 89.2%-94.7%]) compared with the percutaneous (91% [95% CI, 87.3%-94.6%]) and open (82.7% [95% CI, 75.6%-89.8%]) approaches for LE surgery with changes in the mean visual analog scale pain score of 5.54, 4.90, and 3.63, respectively. According to the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, the functional outcome improved in the arthroscopic group (from 54.11 to 15.47), the percutaneous group (from 44.90 to 10.47), and the open group (from 53.55 to 16.13). The overall improvement was also found in the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, the arthroscopic group (from 55.12 to 90.97), the percutaneous group (from 56.31 to 87.65), and the open group (from 64 to 93.37). Conclusion: Arthroscopic surgery had the highest rate of success and the best improvement in functional outcomes among the 3 approaches of LE surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.