Open versus arthroscopic treatment of the rheumatoid elbow arthritis: a comparison of complications at two years utilizing a nationally representative database.

PURPOSE: Symptomatic rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be addressed surgically with open procedures or elbow arthroscopy. Previous studies comparing outcomes of open to arthroscopic arthrolysis for the management of RA did not utilize a large database study. The aim was to compare demographics and two-year complications, in RA patients undergoing open or arthroscopic elbow arthrolysis.

METHODS

A retrospective, cohort study was performed utilizing a private, nationwide, all-payer database. We queried the database to identify patients undergoing open (n = 578) or arthroscopic (n = 379) arthrolysis for elbow RA. The primary goal of the study was to compare complications at two-years. Categorical variables were assessed utilizing the chi-squared test; while, continuous variables were analyzed using the Student's t-test. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess risk factors for infection following open or arthroscopic arthrolysis.

RESULTS

RA patients undergoing open elbow arthrolysis were older (55 vs. 49 years, p < 0.001), predominately female (61.6% vs 60.9%, p = 0.895), and likely to have chronic kidney disease (20.4 vs. 12.9%), and DM (45.2 vs. 32.2%) (both p < 0.005). Open elbow arthrolysis was also associated with higher rates of infection (31.7 vs. 4.7%) and wound complications (26.8 vs. 3.4%) (both p = 0.001). Nerve injury rates were found to be similar (8.3 vs. 9.0%, p = 0.81). On multivariable logistic regression, open elbow procedures were associated with the highest risk for infection (OR: 8.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing open arthrolysis for RA were at a higher risk of infection and wound complications compared to arthroscopic arthrolysis utilizing a nationally representative database. While there appears to be a difference in outcomes following these two procedures, higher level evidence is needed to draw more definitive conclusions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective, Level III.