Please login to view this media
- Talk
- 20/09/2022
- UK
A Comparison of Open and Arthroscopic Surgery for Elbow Stiffness. A Mid-Term Follow-Up
Description
The presentation by Jamie Hind, an orthopedic registrar from the Oxford Rotation, discusses a comparative project on surgical interventions for elbow stiffness, focusing on open versus arthroscopic surgery. He begins by outlining the normal and functional ranges of movement for the elbow, noting that anything less than 120 degrees of flexion is considered a stiff elbow, which can significantly impair patients' quality of life. Jamie explains that non-surgical treatments typically include physiotherapy and pain management; however, some patients may require surgery if conservative measures fail. The presentation's primary aim is to assess clinical and functional outcomes for both surgical methods, hypothesizing that while both approaches should improve range of motion, arthroscopic surgery, being less invasive, would result in fewer complications and higher patient satisfaction.
The retrospective study analyzed data from 135 patients between 2008 and 2020, distinguishing between those who underwent open surgery (75 patients) and those who had arthroscopic surgery (60 patients). Despite some demographic differences, such as the prevalence of intrinsic pathologies in the open group versus extrinsic conditions in the arthroscopic group, the results revealed improvements in range of motion, visual analog scores (VAS), and Mayo scores across both surgical approaches.
The improvements were statistically significant, with both groups reporting high satisfaction (7 out of 10 for open surgery, and 8 out of 10 for arthroscopic surgery). Complications were more common in the open surgery group, prompting Jamie to emphasize the need for more standardized surgical approaches and further research into patient pathologies. In the discussion that followed, audience members raised concerns about the differences in pathologies treated by each surgical method and the implications for interpreting the results, highlighting a need for greater stratification of patient data in future studies.