Table 3.
Outcome Results at 12-Month Follow-up in Identified Studies.
| Outcome instrument (worst-best possible score) | Average scores |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open |
Arthroscopic |
Percutaneous |
|||
| Mean/median (range, number of elbows, follow-up in months) | Mean/median (range, number of elbows, follow-up in months) | Mean/median (range, number of elbows, follow-up in months) | |||
| Preoperative scores | |||||
| DASH (100-0) Dunkow et al11—Md, IQRa Othman28—Md, Rg |
70 (64-75, 24e)11 | 72 (67-86, 14e)28 | 70 (65-80, 23e)11
70 (64-85, 19e)28 |
||
| VAS (0-10) Othman28—Mn, Rg Meknas et al25—Mn, Rg Keizer17—Mn, Rg Radwan et al30—Md, IQR |
6.5 (4-8, 11e, 10-18)25
7.4 (4-10, 20e)17 |
9.1 (8-10, 14e)28 | 9.0 (8-10, 19e)28
2.5 (1.5-4, 27e)30 7.1 (5-10, 13e, 10-18)25 |
||
| Grip strength Keizer et al17—Mn Leppilahti et al19—NR Radwan et al30—b |
26 kg (NR, 20e)17 | Radwan et al30b | |||
| Postoperative scores | |||||
| DASH (100-0) Dunkow et al11—Md, IQR Othman28—Md, Rg |
53 (48-57, 24e)11 | 48 (44-57, 14e)28 | 49 (46-51, 23e)11
50 (46-58, 19e)28 |
||
| VAS (0-10) Othman28—Mn, Rg Meknas et al25—Mn, Rg Keizer17—c Radwan et al30—Md, IQR |
1.8 (0-6, 11e, 10-18m)25
Keizer et al17d |
2.0 (NR, 14e)28 | 2.1 (NR, 19e)28
0.3 (0-1, 27e)30 2.0 (0-7, 13e, 10-18m)25 |
||
| Grip strengthd
Leppilahti et al19—Mn Keizer17—Mn Radwan et al30—Mn, Rg |
39 kg (NR, 18e)17
0.49 kp/cm2 (0-1, 28e, 31m)19 |
Radwan et al30b | |||
| Patient satisfaction | |||||
| Categoriese: | Dunkow et al11 (24e) | Keizer17 (18e) | Othman28 (14e) | Dunkow et al11
(23e) |
Othman28
(19e) |
| Very pleased | 25% | 94% | 50% | 61% | 37% |
| Satisfied | 67% | 6% | 43% | 39% | 53% |
| Dissatisfied | 8% | 0% | 7% | 0% | 11% |
| Return to workf
Leppilahti et al19—Mn, Rg Dunkow11—Md, IQR |
5 wk (4-6 wk, 24e)11
3 wk (2-5 wk, 28e, 31)19 |
2 wk (2-3 wk, 23e)11 | |||
| Change in instrument scores (pre- to postoperative) | |||||
| DASH (100-0) Dunkow et al11—Md, IQR Othman28—Md, Rg |
17 (11-19, 24e)11 | 24 (18-30, 14e)28 | 20 (18-26, 23e)11
20 (18-26, 19e)28 |
||
| VAS (0-10) Meknas et al25—Mn, Rg Radwan et al30—Md, IQR Othman28—Mn |
4.7 (NR, 11e, 10-18m)25 | 7.1 (NR, 14e)28 | 6.9 (NR, 19e)28
2.2 (NR, 27e)30 5.1 (NR, 13e, 10-18m)25 |
||
Note. Results were only reported in this table if the same outcome score was available for more than one category (open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous). If outcomes were reported longer than 12 months, they were noted in the table. Radwan et al30 reports VAS pain for multiple different daily activities (ie, resting pain, night pain, pressure pain, pain during Thomsen test, pain during chair test). For this table, we have only included the result for resting pain. NR = not reported; DASH = Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score; VAS = visual analogue scale.
Denotes the statistical value represented: Median (Md) versus mean (Mn), range (Rg) versus interquartile range (IQR).
Radwan et al30 (27e, 12 mo) did not report values for the grip strength. Instead, they reported the grip strength in the affected arm relative to that in the contralateral (unaffected) arm. This was reported as (1) equal to the contralateral, (2) reduced by up to 25%, (3) reduced by up to 50%, and (4) reduced by up to 75%.
Keizer et al17 (20e, 12 mo/24 mo) reported postoperative VAS as decreased by 50% (3), 50% to 80% (0), 100% (15).
The grip strength in Leppilahti et al19 was reported in kilopond per square centimeter and was only reported postoperatively.
For comparison, categories were standardized by changing (1) “Satisfied”17 and “Pleased”28 to “Very pleased,”11 (2) “Moderately Satisfied”17 to “Satisfied,”11,28 and (3) “Not Satisfied”11 to “Dissatisfied.”17,28 Also, each number was converted to percentages based on the number of elbows in each category.
Return to work for Leppilahti et al19 was turned into a weighted mean as both treatment groups included in their study fell into the “open” category in this study.