ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2025
A comparative meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of arthroscopic versus open surgery in patients with lateral epicondylitis.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lateral epicondylitis frequently necessitates surgical management when non-surgical treatments are ineffective. Anecdotal evidence suggests comparable efficacy between arthroscopic and open surgical repair; however, it is limited by the scarcity of data. This meta-analysis compares between both procedures regarding functional recovery, pain intensity, complications, and return-to-work time. Methods: A detailed systematic review and meta-analysis of research published until February 2024 were performed, comparing arthroscopic and open surgery methods for lateral epicondylitis. The studies were sourced from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The included studies examined outcomes such as functional recovery, pain intensity, complication rates, and time to return to work. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool for randomized studies and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies. Results: The meta-analysis included 19 studies with a total of 20,409 participants. The analysis found no significant differences in postoperative Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores (Mean Difference [MD] = 0.06; 95 % Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.81 to 0.94; P = 0.89) or Mayo Elbow Performance Scores (MD = 0.31; 95 % CI: 2.33 to 2.95; P = 0.80) between the arthroscopic and open surgical methods. The rates of good-to-excellent recovery, surgical failures, and complications were similar across both techniques. Nevertheless, arthroscopic surgery was associated with a significantly shorter return-to-work period (MD = -1.64 months; 95 % CI: 2.60 to -0.68; P = 0.001) and a temporary increase in grip strength six months after surgery (MD = -1.50 kg; 95 % CI: 2.67 to -0.33; P = 0.012). Conclusions: Arthroscopic and open release techniques for lateral epicondylitis provide similar functional outcomes and complication rates. However, arthroscopic surgery may allow for a quicker return to work, suggesting a potential advantage in the early postoperative period. These findings highlight the need for individualized surgical decision-making based on patient-specific factors and surgeon expertise.
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.