We present a systematic review of the recent literatures regarding the arthroscopic and open technique in fragment fixation for osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the humeral capitellum and an analysis of the subjective and objective outcomes between these two procedures.

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/Abstract] OR lateral epicondylitis [Title/Abstract]) AND (open [Title/Abstract] OR arthroscopic [Title/Abstract] OR release [Title/Abstract] OR debridement [Title/Abstract] OR surgery [Title/Abstract])”. 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.

To compare the outcomes between the arthroscopic debridement of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) tendon alone and repairs to the ECRB tendon with suture anchor for the treatment of refractory lateral epicondylitis (LE). We retrospectively reviewed our patients who underwent arthroscopic surgical treatment for refractory LE by a single surgeon from January 2008 to June 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The visual analog scale (VAS), the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) scale, the Verhaar scoring system and the time of back to work were compared between two groups. Both groups showed a significant postoperative improvement regarding the VAS, MEPS, DASH, PRTEE and the Verhaar scoring system (p < 0.05). The repair group showed better results regarding the MEPS, DASH, PRTEE and Verhaar scoring system comparing with the debridement group, which were statically significant (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the VAS both at rest and activity at the final follow-up. There were no significant differences for the average time for return to work (p = 0.229). There were 11 patients in the debridement group and six patients in the repair group, who completed the MRI evaluation at 6 months postoperatively. Compared with arthroscopic release and debridement of the ECRB tendon, arthroscopic suture anchor repairing of the origin of the ECRB tendon provides better outcomes when addressing the refractory LE. Case Series: Level IV

Purpose: The objective of this study was to investigate whether RCR (rotator cuff repair) with BMS (bone marrow stimulation) can provide a lower retear rate and better shoulder function than arthroscopic RCR alone in rotator cuff tear (RCT) patients.Method: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched until Feb 2022. Risk of bias for randomized controlled trials was evaluated by two independent reviewers with Cochrane collaboration risk bias of tool, and that for cohort studies was evaluated with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary outcome was the retear rate. Secondary outcomes included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, University of California, Los Angeles Shoulder Scale (UCLA) score, Constant‐Murley score (CMS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) score. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the effect of suture method and tear size on BMS procedure.Result: Five randomized controlled trials and four cohort studies with a total of 827 patients were included. The pooled retear rate between the RCR with BMS group and the RCR alone group was significantly different (17.5% vs. 28.9%; P < 0.0001). There were no differences in the ASES score, UCLA score and VAS score. The CMS was significantly higher in RCR with BMS group than the RCR alone groups (P = 0.02), while the difference was well below the MCID. RCR with BMS resulted in a significantly lower retear rate than RCR alone for large and massive RCTs (19.7% vs. 32.5%; P = 0.01).Conclusion: Compared with RCR alone, RCR with BMS can significantly reduce the retear rate in arthroscopic RCT patients while not clinically relevant differences were found. BMS may further reduce the retear rate of large and massive RCTs.Level of evidence: Level III; Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis.

Background: Radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is typically performed for non-reconstructible radial head fractures with or without valgus stability. The fixation methods can be divided into cemented rigid fixation, such as screw fixation, and uncemented micromovement fixation, including smooth stem, press-fit, expanded device, in-growth stem, and grit-blasted stem fixations. Different fixation methods may impact long-term clinical outcomes and cause complications. This study aimed to compare the long-term follow-up outcomes of cemented and uncemented radial head prostheses.Methods: A computerized literature search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for studies on radial head prostheses, replacement, and arthroplasty published from inception to April 2022. The prostheses fixation method was divided into cemented and uncemented fixation groups. The outcomes of interest included the participant characteristics, prostheses types, clinical outcomes, reoperation rates, and complication rates during long-term follow-up.Results: A total of 57 studies involving 2050 patients who underwent RHA were included in our analysis. Cemented fixation was used in 23 of these studies, uncemented fixation in 35 studies, and both cemented and uncemented fixations in one study. Both fixation groups showed significantly improved clinical outcomes after treatment. In particular, both the reoperation and complication rates were lower in the uncemented fixation group (12% and 22%, respectively) than that in the cemented fixation group (20% and 29%, respectively). Among the studies, uncemented monopolar fixation had the lowest reoperation rate (14%), while cemented monopolar fixation had the highest reoperation rate (36%). Regarding complication rates, uncemented bipolar fixation yielded the lowest rate (12%), while cemented bipolar fixation yielded the highest rate (34%). The range of motion and clinical outcome scores were good in both groups.Conclusion: Uncemented radial head prostheses had lower reoperation and complication rates than cemented prostheses. In particular, uncemented monopolar prostheses may yield the lowest reoperation rate, while uncemented bipolar prostheses may yield the lowest overall complication rate.