Arthroscopic versus percutaneous release of common extensor origin for treatment of chronic XXXX .

@entity1 @entity2633 @entity701 @entity158
BACKGROUND: @entity2633 is a common orthopedic problem. Rest, activity modification, and conservative therapies are generally efficacious in relieving symptoms in the majority of @entity1 ; however, a small percentage of @entity1 will experience refractory @entity158 and require surgical intervention to alleviate their discomfort. Surgical release of the common extensor origin can be done through an open, percutaneous, or arthroscopic approach. @entity1 AND METHODS: This prospective study includes 33 @entity1 with chronic resistant @entity2633 who had received conservative treatment including modification of activity and 2 injections of 80  mg of @entity701 , for more than 6  months, aiming to compare two different techniques of treatment. The first group included 14 @entity1 with a mean age of 42  years treated by arthroscopic release of common extensor origin. The second group included 19 @entity1 with a mean age of 48  years treated by percutaneous tenotomy. The mean follow up was 12  months for the arthroscopic group and 10  months for the percutaneous tenotomy group. RESULTS: The results were evaluated according to the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and the visual analogue scale (VAS). In the first group (treated by arthroscopy), the average DASH score improved from 72 to 48 and the average VAS improved from 9.1 to 2. In the second group (treated by percutaneous tenotomy), the average DASH score improved from 70 to 50 and the average VAS improved from 9 to 2.1. Concerning @entity1 satisfaction after surgery, in the first group 7 @entity1 (50%) were pleased, 6 (42.85%) were satisfied and 1 case (7.14%) was not satisfied. In the second group, 7 @entity1 (36.84%) were pleased, 10(52.63%) were satisfied and 2 cases (10.52%) were not satisfied. CONCLUSION: Both arthroscopic and percutaneous release of the common extensor origin can be effective in treatment of @entity2633 . Arthroscopic treatment of @entity2633 gives more favorable results than percutaneous tenotomy. Although technically more difficult than percutaneous tenotomy, arthroscopy has the advantage of visualization of the pathology and much better improvement of elbow functions.
