ArticleActa chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca2025
[Comparison of the Results of Expanded Arthroscopic Debridement and 18-Gauge Percutaneous Tenotomy in Lateral Epicondylitis].
Article in Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of the studyThis retrospective comparative study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and complication rates associated with two minimally invasive surgical techniques: extended arthroscopic debridement and 18-gauge percutaneous tenotomy. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study included 31 patients with resistant lateral epicondylitis who underwent either arthroscopic debridement (n=14) or percutaneous tenotomy (n=17) between January 2019 and June 2023. Outcomes were assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) at preoperative, 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month intervals. Additionally, a detailed cost analysis was performed to compare the economic implications of both surgical techniques.
resultsThe results demonstrated significant improvements in both groups at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. However, by the 12-month follow-up, the arthroscopic group maintained stable clinical outcomes, while the percutaneous group showed a decline in MEPS and PRTEE scores, suggesting a potential regression in long-term efficacy. Despite this, the percutaneous tenotomy group benefited from a shorter procedure time, fewer complications, and a quicker return to work, making it a highly cost-effective alternative.
conclusionsIn conclusion, while extended arthroscopic debridement offers sustained clinical benefits, particularly in long-term follow-up, 18-gauge percutaneous tenotomy emerges as a viable primary intervention due to its simplicity, low complication rate, and significant cost savings. Future studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods are warranted to further elucidate the long-term effectiveness and patient satisfaction associated with these techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40862377What 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.