Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2008 Oct;32(5):671-7.
doi: 10.1007/s00264-007-0379-9. Epub 2007 Jun 6.

Resistant tennis elbow: shock-wave therapy versus percutaneous tenotomy

Yasser A Radwan  1 , Gamal ElSobhi, Walid S Badawy, Ali Reda, Sherif Khalid
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Resistant tennis elbow: shock-wave therapy versus percutaneous tenotomy

Yasser A Radwan et al. Int Orthop. 2008 Oct.

Abstract
in English, French

Fifty-six patients who suffered from chronic persistent tennis elbow of more than six months duration were randomly assigned to two active treatment groups. Group 1 (n = 29) received high-energy extracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESWT; 1,500 shocks) at 18 kV (0.22 mJ/mm(2)) without local anaesthesia; group 2 (n = 27) underwent percutaneous tenotomy of the common extensor origin. Both groups achieved improvement from the base line at three weeks, six weeks, 12 weeks and 12 months post-intervention. The success rate (Roles and Maudsley score: excellent and good) at three months in the ESWT group was 65.5% and in the tenotomy group was 74.1%. ESWT appeared to be a useful noninvasive treatment method that reduced the necessity for surgical procedures.

Cinquante-six patients qui souffraient de douleurs chroniques de type tennis elbow depuis plus de six mois ont été randomisés dans une étude avec deux groupes de traitements. Le groupe 1 (n = 29) a été traité par un traitement physique comprenant 1.500 chocs à 18 kV (0.22 mJ/mm2) après anesthésie locale, le groupe 2 (n = 27) a été traité par ténotomie percutanée de l’insertion de l’extenseur commun. Les deux groupes ont été évalués à 3 semaines, 6 semaines, 12 semaines et 12 mois après l’intervention au traitement. Le taux de bons résultats (selon le score de Roles et Maudsley) pour le groupe ayant bénéficié de traitements physiques a été de 65.5%, alors que le groupe traité par ténotomie présentait 74.1% de bons résultats. Le traitement physique apparaît utile. Il s’agit d’un traitement non invasif qui peut réduire la nécessité d’un traitement chirurgical.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Common extensor origin prior to division
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Boyd HB, McLeod AC., Jr Tennis elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55:1183–1187. - PubMed
    1. Coonrad RW, Hooper WR. Tennis elbow: its course, natural history, conservative and surgical management. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55:1177–1182. - PubMed
    1. Crowther MA, Bannister GC, Huma H, Rooker GD. A prospective, randomized study to compare extracorporeal shock-wave therapy and injection of steroid for the treatment of tennis elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:678–679. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.84B5.12741. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dunkow PD, Jatti M, Muddu BN. A comparison of open and percutaneous techniques in the surgical treatment of tennis elbow. J Bone Joint Surg. 2004;86 B:701–704. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.86B5.14469. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fuselier HA, Prats L, Fontenot C, Gauthier A., Jr Comparison of mobile lithotripters at one institution: Healthtronics Lithotron, Dornier MFL-5000, and Dornier Doli. J Endourol. 1999;13:539–542. - PubMed

Publication types