Surgery for tennis elbow: a systematic review.
elbow
surgery
systematic review
tennis
Journal
Shoulder & elbow
ISSN: 1758-5732
Titre abrégé: Shoulder Elbow
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101506589
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
27
06
2017
revised:
25
10
2017
accepted:
31
10
2017
entrez:
6
2
2019
pubmed:
6
2
2019
medline:
6
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is no consensus on the most suitable treatment for tennis elbow but, in the USA, surgical intervention is increasing despite a lack of supportive research evidence. The aim of this systematic review was to provide a balanced update based on all relevant published randomized controlled trials conducted to date. An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI, AMED, PsycINFO, HBE, HMIC, PubMed, TRIP, Dynamed Plus and The Cochrane Library was complemented by hand searching. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and data were synthesized narratively, based on levels of evidence, as a result of heterogeneity. Twelve studies of poor methodological quality were included. The available data suggest that surgical interventions for tennis elbow are no more effective than nonsurgical and sham interventions. Surgical technique modifications may enhance effectiveness compared to traditional methods but have not been tested against a placebo. Current research evidence suggests that surgery for tennis elbow is no more effective than nonsurgical treatment based on evidence with significant methodological limitations. Given the recalcitrant nature of tennis elbow for some patients, further research in the form of a high-quality placebo-controlled surgical trial with an additional conservative arm is required to usefully inform clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is no consensus on the most suitable treatment for tennis elbow but, in the USA, surgical intervention is increasing despite a lack of supportive research evidence. The aim of this systematic review was to provide a balanced update based on all relevant published randomized controlled trials conducted to date.
METHODS
METHODS
An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI, AMED, PsycINFO, HBE, HMIC, PubMed, TRIP, Dynamed Plus and The Cochrane Library was complemented by hand searching. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and data were synthesized narratively, based on levels of evidence, as a result of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twelve studies of poor methodological quality were included. The available data suggest that surgical interventions for tennis elbow are no more effective than nonsurgical and sham interventions. Surgical technique modifications may enhance effectiveness compared to traditional methods but have not been tested against a placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Current research evidence suggests that surgery for tennis elbow is no more effective than nonsurgical treatment based on evidence with significant methodological limitations. Given the recalcitrant nature of tennis elbow for some patients, further research in the form of a high-quality placebo-controlled surgical trial with an additional conservative arm is required to usefully inform clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30719096
doi: 10.1177/1758573217745041
pii: 10.1177_1758573217745041
pmc: PMC6348580
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
35-44Références
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Aug;(401):125-31
pubmed: 12151889
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Jul;(376):137-40
pubmed: 10906868
Br J Sports Med. 2017 Dec;51(24):1759-1766
pubmed: 28495804
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(1):CD003525
pubmed: 11869670
Int Orthop. 2008 Oct;32(5):671-7
pubmed: 17551726
Br J Sports Med. 2001 Jun;35(3):200-1
pubmed: 11375883
Am J Sports Med. 2015 May;43(5):1066-71
pubmed: 25656546
Am J Ind Med. 2002 Mar;41(3):149-69
pubmed: 11920960
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Jun 15;28(12):1290-9
pubmed: 12811274
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994 Jun;76(6):951
pubmed: 8200903
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2001 Jun;121(6):329-32
pubmed: 11482465
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Apr;46(5):1106-1113
pubmed: 29498885
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Aug;25(8):1303-11
pubmed: 27422460
Orthop J Sports Med. 2013 Sep 27;1(4):2325967113505433
pubmed: 26535247
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015 Nov;45(11):938-49
pubmed: 26381484
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Jun 01;17:239
pubmed: 27245219
Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 Aug;64(8):1112-7
pubmed: 15829576
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Jul;86(5):701-4
pubmed: 15274267
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 15;6(3):e010194
pubmed: 27008687
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Jan-Feb;13(1):72-7
pubmed: 14735078
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
J Physiother. 2015 Oct;61(4):174-81
pubmed: 26361816
Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2009 Jun 15;47(12):888-91
pubmed: 19781238
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Oct;36(10):1960-5
pubmed: 18559469
J Rheumatol. 2006 Jul;33(7):1351-63
pubmed: 16821270
Shoulder Elbow. 2020 Feb;12(1):46-53
pubmed: 32010233
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Jul;75(7):1034-43
pubmed: 8335663
Occup Environ Med. 1998 Apr;55(4):264-71
pubmed: 9624281
Trials. 2015 May 09;16:210
pubmed: 25956385