Trends in Surgical Practices for Lateral Epicondylitis Among Newly Trained Orthopaedic Surgeons

Abstract

Background:

Much controversy exists regarding the optimal surgical intervention for lateral epicondylitis because of a multitude of options available and the lack of comparative studies. Knowledge of the current practice trends would help guide the design of comparative studies needed to determine which surgical technique results in the best outcome.

Purpose:

To review the latest practice trends for the surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis among newly trained surgeons in the United States utilizing the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) database.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

The ABOS database was utilized to identify surgical cases for lateral epicondylitis submitted by Part II board certification examination candidates from 2004 through 2013. Inclusion criteria were predetermined using a combination of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Cases were organized by open and arthroscopic treatment groups and by fellowship training and were analyzed to determine differences in surgical techniques, complication rates, and concomitant procedures.

Results:

In total, 1150 surgeons submitted 2106 surgical cases for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. The number of surgical cases for lateral epicondylitis performed per 10,000 submitted cases significantly decreased from 26.7 in 2004 to 21.1 in 2013 ( P = .002). Among all cases, 92.2% were open and 7.8% were arthroscopic, with no change in the incidence of arthroscopic surgeries over the study period. Shoulder and elbow (18.1%) and sports medicine (11.4%) surgeons were more likely to perform surgery arthroscopically compared with hand surgeons (6.1%) ( P < .001). There was no difference in overall self-reported complication rates between open (4.4%) and arthroscopic (5.5%) procedures ( P = .666). Percutaneous tenotomy, debridement only, and debridement with tendon repair comprised 6.4%, 46.3%, and 47.3% of open treatment, respectively. Sports medicine, hand, and shoulder and elbow surgeons were more likely to repair the tendon after debridement compared with other surgeons, who were more likely to perform debridement alone ( P < .001). Hand surgeons were most likely to perform concomitant procedures, of which the majority were neuroplasties.

Conclusion:

Although comparative studies are ultimately necessary for determining the optimal surgical technique, researchers should be mindful of the differences in practices according to training and the extent to which concomitant procedures are being performed, as both these factors may confound any future results.