This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dunkow, P. D. Articles by Muddu, B. N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dunkow, P. D. Articles by Muddu, B. N.

A comparison of open and percutaneous techniques in the surgical treatment of tennis elbow

Trauma and Orthopaedics, Department of Orthopaedics, Tameside Hospital, Fountain Street, Ashton under Lyne, Manchester OL6 9RW, UK.

Correspondence should be sent to Mr P. D. Dunkow at Flat 4, 16 The Beeches, Didsbury, Manchester M20 2BG, UK.

We conducted a prospective, randomised, controlled trial of 45 patients (47 elbows), with tennis elbow, who underwent either a formal open release or a percutaneous tenotomy. All patients had pre- and post-operative assessment using the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scoring system. Both groups were followed up for a minimum of 12 months. Statistical analyses using the Mann-Whitney U test and repeated measured ANOVA showed significant improvements for patient satisfaction (p = 0.012), time to return to work (p = 0.0001), improvements in DASH score (p = 0.001) and improvement in sporting activities (p = 0.046) in the percutaneous group. Those patients undergoing a percutaneous release returned to work on average three weeks earlier and improved significantly more quickly than those undergoing an open procedure. The percutaneous procedure is a quicker and simpler procedure to undertake and produces significantly better results.