[Comparison of the Results of Expanded Arthroscopic Debridement and 18-Gauge Percutaneous Tenotomy in Lateral Epicondylitis].

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This 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 METHODS

The 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.

RESULTS

The 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.

CONCLUSIONS

In 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.