Is There any Difference in Clinical Outcome between Open and Arthroscopic Treatment for Tennis Elbow? A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

There is considerable controversy regarding the optimal approach (open vs arthroscopic) of releasing and/or debridement for the treatment of tennis elbow (TE). The aim of this study was to determine the clinical outcomes of the two techniques by quantitatively synthesizing outcome data. The study was performed by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and Elsevier databases between January 1995 and April 2022 for a minimum follow‐up of 6 months. The searching strategy was “(tennis elbow [Title/] OR lateral epicondylitis [Title/]) AND (open [Title/] OR arthroscopic [Title/] OR release [Title/] OR debridement [Title/] OR surgery [Title/])”. The quality of each study was investigated using the Coleman Methodology Score. In total, 1411 (693 open, 718 arthroscopic) elbows in 1392 patients who underwent releasing and debridement for tennis elbow were identified. The mean Coleman Methodology Score for the included studies was 55.2 ± 8.6 (open: 55.0 ± 9.4, arthroscopic: 55.8 ± 8.2). Improved clinical results were achieved after treatment with either open or arthroscopic treatment. The surgical success rate was 95.6% in open surgery and 92.4% in arthroscopic management. The complication rates were 2.2% and 1.5% for open and arthroscopic procedures, respectively. Similar subjective and objective outcomes, and surgical success rate were observed in patients with both techniques. Patients who had undergone arthroscopic release seemed to return to work earlier (5.3 weeks vs 7.1 weeks). To draw more definite conclusions, high‐quality long‐term follow‐up randomized controlled trials are needed. Both techniques demonstrated similar subjective and objective outcomes, and surgical success rate were observed in patients with both techniques. Patients who had undergone arthroscopic release seemed to return to work earlier.