Top

Skeletal Radiology

Published in:

01-01-2021 | Ultrasound | Scientific Article

Percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy with the TX-1 device versus surgical tenotomy for the treatment of common extensor tendinosis

Authors: Faysal Altahawi, Xin Li, Brittani Demarest, Michael C. Forney

Published in: Skeletal Radiology | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Objective

To compare outcomes in patients treated for chronic common extensor tendinosis with percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy (TX-1 device) versus surgical tenotomy.

Materials and methods

Outcomes from consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous tenotomy with the TX-1 device were compared with outcomes from consecutive patients who underwent surgical tenotomy. Patients were contacted to retrospectively assess their outcomes at 4 time points: before treatment, 2 weeks after treatment, 3 to 6 months after treatment, and 12 months after treatment. Outcomes were assessed using the quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand score (QuickDASH) and the Oxford elbow score (OES). Student’s t tests were used to compare postprocedural versus preprocedural scores and percutaneous versus surgical tenotomy scores.

Results

Response rates were 23 of 43 and 10 of 47 for surveyed percutaneous and surgical tenotomy patients, respectively. There were significant improvements from preprocedural scores in all primary outcome measures at 3-to-6-month and 12-month time points for both procedures. No significant changes from preprocedural scores were seen for either procedure at 2 weeks after treatment or between percutaneous and surgical tenotomy in preprocedural or postprocedural scores for any outcome measure. At 2 weeks, improved percutaneous tenotomy scores approached significance compared with percutaneous preprocedural QuickDASH (p = 0.060) and surgical 2-week OES function domain (p = 0.074) scores.

Conclusion

Ultrasonic percutaneous tenotomy with the TX-1 device and surgical tenotomy have similar outcomes for chronic common extensor tendinosis, with significant symptomatic improvement occurring after 3 to 6 months. Larger studies are needed to assess for differences at 2 weeks.

Shiri R, Viikari-Juntura E. Lateral and medial epicondylitis: role of occupational factors. Best Pr Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011;25:43–57.CrossRef

Shiri R, Viikari-Juntura E, Varonen H, Heliövaara M. Prevalence and determinants of lateral and medial epicondylitis: a population study. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164(11):1065–74.CrossRef

Sanders TL, Maradit Kremers H, Bryan AJ, Ransom JE, Smith J, Morrey BF. The epidemiology and health care burden of tennis elbow: a population-based study. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:1066–71.CrossRef

Faro F, Wolf JM. Lateral epicondylitis: review and current concepts. J Hand Surg. 2007;32:1271–9.CrossRef

Coonrad RW, Hooper WR. Tennis elbow: its course, natural history, conservative and surgical management. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1973;55:1177–82.CrossRef

Gregory BP, Wysocki RW, Cohen MS. Controversies in surgical management of recalcitrant enthesopathy of the extensor carpi radialis brevis. J Hand Surg Am Elsevier Inc. 2016;41:856–9.CrossRef

Othman AMA. Arthroscopic versus percutaneous release of common extensor origin for treatment of chronic tennis elbow. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131:383–8.CrossRef

Sanders TL, Maradit Kremers H, Bryan AJ, Ransom JE, Morrey BF. Health care utilization and direct medical costs of tennis elbow: a population-based study. Sports Health. 2016

De Smedt T, De Jong A, Van Leemput W, Lieven D, Van Glabbeek F. Lateral epicondylitis in tennis: update on aetiology, biomechanics and treatment. Br J Sports Med. 2007:816–9.

10.

Calfee RP, Patel A, DaSilva MF, Akelman E. Management of lateral epicondylitis: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16:19–29.CrossRef

11.

Nirschl RP, Pettrone FA. Tennis elbow. the surgical treatment of lateral epicondylitis. J bone Jt Surg Am. 1979;61:832–9.CrossRef

12.

Solheim E, Hegna J, Øyen J. Extensor tendon release in tennis elbow: results and prognostic factors in 80 elbows. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19:1023–7.CrossRef

13.

Coleman B, Quinlan JF, Matheson JA. Surgical treatment for lateral epicondylitis: a long-term follow-up of results. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19:363–7.CrossRef

14.

Grewal R, MacDermid JC, Shah P, King GJW. Functional outcome of arthroscopic extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon release in chronic lateral epicondylitis. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34:849–57.CrossRef

15.

Baker CL Jr, Baker CL 3rd. Long-term follow-up of arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Am J Sport Med. 2008;36:254–60.CrossRef

16.

Szabo SJ, Savoie FH, Field LD, Ramsey JR, Hosemann CD. Tendinosis of the extensor carpi radialis brevis: an evaluation of three methods of operative treatment. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2006;15:721–7.CrossRef

17.

Koh JSB, Mohan PC, Howe TS, Lee BP, Chia SL, Yang Z, et al. Fasciotomy and surgical tenotomy for recalcitrant lateral elbow tendinopathy: early clinical experience with a novel device for minimally invasive percutaneous microresection. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:636–44.CrossRef

18.

Barnes DE, Beckley JM, Smith J. Percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy for chronic elbow tendinosis: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015.

19.

Battista CT, Dorweiler MA, Fisher ML, Morrey BF, Noyes MP. Ultrasonic percutaneous tenotomy of common extensor tendons for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg. 2017;00:1–4.CrossRef

20.

Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap )—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. Elsevier Inc. 2009;42:377–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.CrossRef

21.

Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN, Amadio P, Bombardier C, Cole D, et al. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A. 2005;87:1038–46.

22.

Boller I, Doll H, Dawson J, Carr AJ, Rees J, Little C, et al. The development and validation of a patient-reported questionnaire to assess outcomes of elbow surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90-B:466–73.CrossRef

23.

Uygur E, Aktaş B, Özkut A, Erinç S, Yilmazoglu EG. Dry needling in lateral epicondylitis: a prospective controlled study. Int Orthop. 2017;41:2321–5.CrossRef

24.

Suzuki T, Iwamoto T, Matsumura N, Nakamura M, Matsumoto M, Sato K. Percutaneous tendon needling without ultrasonography for lateral epicondylitis. Keio J Med. 2019:17–9.

25.

Stoychev V, Finestone AS, Kalichman L. Dry needling as a treatment modality for tendinopathy: a narrative review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020;13:133–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-020-09608-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Gaspar MP, Motto MA, Lewis S, Jacoby SM, Culp RW, Lee Osterman A, et al. Platelet-rich plasma injection with percutaneous needling for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis: comparison of tenotomy and fenestration techniques. Orthop J Sport Med. 2017;5:1–7.CrossRef

27.

Kwapisz A, Prabhakar S, Compagnoni R, Sibilska A, Randelli P. Platelet-rich plasma for elbow pathologies: a descriptive review of current literature. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2018;11:598–606.CrossRef

28.

Boden AL, Scott MT, Dalwadi PP, Mautner K, Mason RA, Gottschalk MB. Platelet-rich plasma versus Tenex in the treatment of medial and lateral epicondylitis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. Elsevier Inc. 2019;28:112–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.08.032.CrossRef

29.

Gupta PK, Acharya A, Khanna V, Roy S, Khillan K, Sambandam SN. PRP versus steroids in a deadlock for efficacy: long-term stability versus short-term intensity—results from a randomised trial. Musculoskelet Surg. Springer Milan. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-019-00619-w.

30.

Erickson JL, Hall MM. Evidence-based treatment of common extensor tendinopathy. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Reports. 2015;3:50–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-014-0070-1.CrossRef

31.

Niedermeier SR, Crouser N, Speeckaert A, Goyal KS. A survey of fellowship-trained upper extremity surgeons on treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Hand (N Y). 2018:1558944718770212 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29667850. Accessed 5 2020.

Title: Percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy with the TX-1 device versus surgical tenotomy for the treatment of common extensor tendinosis
Authors: Faysal Altahawi
Xin Li
Brittani Demarest
Michael C. Forney
Publication date: 01-01-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Ultrasound
Epicondylitis
Ultrasound
Tendinosis
Published in: Skeletal Radiology / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03540-7

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy with the TX-1 device versus surgical tenotomy for the treatment of common extensor tendinosis

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Imaging of non-neurogenic peripheral nerve malignancy—a case series and systematic review

Diagnostic concordance between ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy and surgical resection specimens for histological grading of extremity and trunk soft tissue sarcoma

Patients with ACL graft deficiency showed a higher frequency of knee osteoarthritis compared with patients with intact ACL graft in the medium term

Clinical evaluation of a new adaptive iterative metal artifact reduction method in whole-body low-dose CT skeletal survey examinations

3D imaging for hindfoot alignment assessment: a comparative study between non-weight-bearing MRI and weight-bearing CT

MRI features of and factors related to ankle injuries in asymptomatic amateur marathon runners