You are leaving Medscape Education
Cancel Continue
Log in to save activities Your saved activities will show here so that you can easily access them whenever you're ready. Log in here CME & Education Log in to keep track of your credits.
 

CME

Examining the Value of Imaging in the Management of Tennis Elbow

  • Authors: David Ruch, MD
  • CME Released: 2/1/2022
  • Valid for credit through: 2/1/2023
Start Activity

  • Credits Available

    Physicians - maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™

    You Are Eligible For

    • Letter of Completion

Target Audience and Goal Statement

Target Audience

This activity is intended for orthopaedic surgeons, primary care providers, sports medicine physicians, physical therapists, and hand surgeons.

Statement of Need

Lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) affects up to 3% of adults in the United States. Most cases of lateral epicondylitis are self-limiting, with 90% of patients recovering within 1 year. Imaging, such as radiography, ultrasonography, and MRI, is frequently used to evaluate lateral epicondylitis; however, the role of imaging studies in managing patients with this condition is unclear. For instance, a recent study that evaluated MRI use in patients with lateral epicondylitis found that one-third of MRIs occurred within 90 days of initial diagnosis despite the known lengthy history of the disease process and the high likelihood that the condition would self-resolve. Furthermore, the study found that MRI use is associated with increased use of surgical and nonsurgical interventions and increased healthcare costs. Given that most lateral epicondylitis cases resolve within 1 year and that imaging has not been found to influence treatment plans for patients, decreasing the use of unnecessary imaging could help decrease costs without adversely affecting evidence-based care.

Learning Objectives

Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:

  • Discuss the value of imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of lateral epicondylitis


Disclosures

Disclosure Policy:

Med-IQ requires any person in a position to control the content of an educational activity to disclose all financial relationships with any ineligible company over the past 24 months. The ACCME deems financial relationships as relevant if the educational content an individual can control is related to the business lines or products of the ineligible company. Individuals who refuse to disclose will not be permitted to contribute to this CME activity in any way. Med-IQ has policies in place that will identify and mitigate COIs prior to this educational activity. Med-IQ also requires faculty to disclose discussions of investigational products or unlabeled/unapproved uses of drugs or devices regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Off-label/unapproved drug uses or products are mentioned within this activity.

Disclosure Statement:
The content of this activity has been peer reviewed and has been approved for compliance. The faculty and contributors have indicated the following financial relationships, which have been mitigated through an established COI mitigation process, and have stated that these reported relationships will not have any impact on their ability to give an unbiased presentation.

Statement of Evidenced-Based Content:

Educational activities that assist physicians in carrying out their professional responsibilities more effectively and efficiently are consistent with the ACCME definition of continuing medical education (CME). As an ACCME-accredited provider of CME, Med-IQ has a policy to review and ensure that all the content and any recommendations, treatments, and manners of practicing medicine in CME activities are scientifically based, valid, and relevant to the practice of medicine. Med-IQ is responsible for validating the content of the CME activities it provides. Specifically, (1) all recommendations addressing the medical care of patients must be based on evidence that is scientifically sound and recognized as such within the profession; (2) all scientific research referred to, reported, or used in CME in support or justification of a patient care recommendation must conform to generally accepted standards of experimental design, data collection, and analysis.

Med-IQ is not liable for any decision made or action taken in reliance upon the information provided through this activity.


Faculty

  • David Ruch, MD

    Professor, Chief of Division of Hand Surgery 
    Hand Surgeon, Microvascular Surgeon, Orthopaedic Surgeon 
    Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
    Duke University School of Medicine 
    Durham, North Carolina

    Disclosures

    David Ruch, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
    Royalty: Acumed.
    Consulting fees/advisory boards: Acumed, Arthrosurface, Field Orthopaedics.
    Fees received for promotional/non-CME activities: Acumed.

Planners/Reviewers

  • Anne Jacobson, MSPharm, CHCP

    Writer 
    Cocoa Beach, Florida 

  • Christie Avraamides, PhD

    Senior Clinical Content Manager
    Med-IQ
    Baltimore, Maryland

  • Kerry Kennedy, ELS

    Editorial Manager
    Med-IQ
    Baltimore, Maryland

  • Laura Rafferty, ELS

    Senior Managing Editor
    Med-IQ
    Baltimore, Maryland

  • Samantha Gordon, MS

    Accreditation Manager
    Med-IQ
    Baltimore, Maryland

  • Amy Sison

    Director of CME
    Med-IQ
    Baltimore, Maryland

The  writer, peer reviewers, and activity planners have no financial relationships to disclose. 


Accreditation Statements

    For Physicians

  • Med-IQ is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

    Med-IQ designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

    Contact Med-IQ at (toll-free) 866 858 7434 or email [email protected].

    Contact This Provider

For questions regarding the content of this activity, contact the accredited provider for this CME/CE activity noted above. For technical assistance, contact [email protected]


Instructions for Participation and Credit

There are no fees for participating in or receiving credit for this online educational activity. For information on applicability and acceptance of continuing education credit for this activity, please consult your professional licensing board.

This activity is designed to be completed within the time designated on the title page; physicians should claim only those credits that reflect the time actually spent in the activity. To successfully earn credit, participants must complete the activity online during the valid credit period that is noted on the title page. To receive AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™, you must receive a minimum score of 100% on the post-test.

Follow these steps to earn CME/CE credit*:

  1. Read about the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures.
  2. Study the educational content online or print it out.
  3. Online, choose the best answer to each test question. To receive a certificate, you must receive a passing score as designated at the top of the test. We encourage you to complete the Activity Evaluation to provide feedback for future programming.

You may now view or print the certificate from your CME/CE Tracker. You may print the certificate, but you cannot alter it. Credits will be tallied in your CME/CE Tracker and archived for 6 years; at any point within this time period, you can print out the tally as well as the certificates from the CME/CE Tracker.

*The credit that you receive is based on your user profile.

CME

Examining the Value of Imaging in the Management of Tennis Elbow

Authors: David Ruch, MDFaculty and Disclosures

CME Released: 2/1/2022

Valid for credit through: 2/1/2023

processing....

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) is an overuse injury that arises from activities or tasks that involve repetitive gripping or wrist extension, forearm supination, or radial deviation.[1] Lateral epicondylitis is one of the most common upper extremity disorders, affecting up to 3% of adults in the United States (US).[2,3] According to national insurance claims data, the incidence of lateral epicondylitis remained steady between 2007 and 2014 in the US, as did the rate of surgical intervention to treat this disorder.[4] Total annual healthcare costs associated with lateral epicondylitis, however, increased significantly during the same time period (P = .006), suggesting a growing burden on the US healthcare system.[4]

Lateral epicondylitis is diagnosed more frequently in people older than 40 years and occurs in men and women equally.[4] Any activity (eg, forced wrist extension involved in the backhand stroke in tennis) involving the repeated use of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) muscle, or other supinator or wrist extensor muscles, can cause lateral epicondylitis.[1,5] Originally described as an inflammatory condition, lateral epicondylitis is now more widely recognized as a degenerative process, in part because of the lack of inflammatory cells present on histologic examination.[5] The complete pathophysiology of lateral epicondylitis remains poorly understood but is believed to originate with microtrauma caused by repetitive mechanical stress, leading to chronic degenerative tendinopathy.[6] This brief publication includes a review of initial approaches for diagnosing and managing lateral epicondylitis, with a focus on the typical imaging methods used during diagnosis and the value of this imaging in the routine care of patients.

INITIAL DIAGNOSTIC AND MANAGEMENT APPROACHES

The diagnosis of lateral epicondylitis is typically based on clinical history and physical examination. Characteristic features include a history of lateral elbow pain that worsens with use, focal tenderness over the bony prominence of the lateral epicondyle, and pain with resisted wrist extension.[1] At present, no consensus exists regarding optimal management.[1] The primary goals of treatment are to control pain, preserve function, and facilitate healing.[2] Initial management involves a “watch-and-wait” strategy that includes a combination of:

  • Rest. Resting from the aggravating activity, modifying the activity, and avoiding overuse are the cornerstones of care.[7] The combined use of RICE (rest, ice, compression, elevation) can provide pain relief, particularly during early management.[7]
  • Bracing. Wrist splints can prevent overuse during activities of daily living.[7] Counterforce braces such as forearm straps and sleeve orthoses can reduce tension in the forearm extensor muscles, thereby relieving pain and improving grip strength.[8]
  • Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Given that the pathophysiology of lateral epicondylitis is largely degenerative rather than inflammatory, NSAIDs are not expected to have a disease-modifying effect. Instead, oral and topical NSAIDs are used for their analgesic properties. Evidence supports the use of topical NSAIDs, in particular, for up to 4 weeks of pain relief.[9]
  • Physical therapy. Options range from stretching and strengthening exercises to extracorporeal shock wave therapy and therapeutic ultrasonography.[7,10]

Local corticosteroid injections are also used to alleviate acute symptoms.[7] However, some studies have challenged their utility, suggesting that these injections provide short-term relief but worsen long-term outcomes; these findings may have contributed to a decrease in their use.[11-13] Indeed, the annual rate of corticosteroid injections used to treat lateral epicondylitis fell from 23.3% in 2010 to 18.8% in 2017.[13]

Most cases of lateral epicondylitis are self-limiting; in fact, 80% of cases resolve within 6 months, and 90% of patients recover within 1 year.[14] Patients with persistent or severe symptoms that do not resolve with nonoperative treatment can be considered for surgery.[5] Several surgical approaches are used to treat this condition, most of which involve debriding the abnormal fibrotic tissue of the ECRB.[1] Each year, approximately 2% of patients with lateral epicondylitis undergo surgery.[4]

ROLE OF IMAGING IN DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT PLANNING

Ultrasonography, radiography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been explored as potential tools to enhance the diagnostic evaluation of lateral epicondylitis and thereby guide treatment decisions.[15-17] However, their role in patient management has been unclear.

Ultrasonography

Ultrasonography is a widely available, inexpensive, and reliable option for visualizing soft-tissue involvement when a diagnosis of lateral epicondylitis is unclear.[2,17] In particular, the absence of grayscale ultrasonography changes and neovascularity, as assessed by color Doppler, is helpful in ruling out lateral epicondylitis.[18] Given the wide degree of anatomic variability in the ECRB tendon in affected patients, ultrasonography is also used to support the accuracy of needle positioning in patients receiving corticosteroid injections.[19]

Beyond these uses, however, ultrasonography appears to play a limited role in patient management.[20] For instance, in a study of 60 patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis, the 3 ultrasonography measurements assessed—tendon thickness, color Doppler activity, and presence or absence of bone spur—had no correlation with pain, disability, Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation score, or disease duration, which are important considerations for individualized treatment planning.[20]

Radiography

Radiography is less costly than other imaging modalities at most institutions and reveals the distinctive abnormalities associated with lateral epicondylitis, such as calcification at the lateral epicondyle. In one study of 245 patients with lateral epicondylitis, 115 (47%) were found to have lateral epicondyle calcifications using standard digital radiography.[15] Imaging also revealed 113 additional radiographic findings in 85 patients (35%), most commonly olecranon enthesophytes (21%), medial epicondylar enthesophytes (13%), and coronoid osteophytes (9%).

Of note, patients had similar clinical features regardless of the presence or absence of calcifications or size of the calcified lesions (Table 1).[15] These clinical features included pain levels, assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS); symptom duration; functional impairment, determined by the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) outcome measure; and history of steroid injection. Moreover, radiographic findings did not influence the treatment plan for any patient, suggesting that this imaging modality does not have a role in patient evaluation or treatment decision making. All patients were managed with a mix of activity modification, bracing, NSAIDs, physical therapy, and steroid injections, and no patients underwent surgery.[15]

Table 1. Characteristics of Patients With and Without Radiographic Calcificationsa

Characteristic

Patients With Calcifications
(n = 115)

Patients Without Calcifications
(n = 130)

Age, years

53.8

48.2

Male sex, %

63.5

53.3

Right laterality, %

67.0

62.3

Dominant side affected, %

72.2

66.2

Symptom duration, months

4.9

5.3

Pain VAS scoreb

4.7

5.0

QuickDASH scorec

40.0

40.2

Prior corticosteroid injection, %

7.8

7.7

aData derived from Shillito M, Soong M, Martin N. Radiographic and clinical analysis of lateral epicondylitis. J Hand Surg Am. 2017;42(6):436-442.
bVAS scores range from 0 (no pain) to 10 (severe pain).
c QuickDASH scores range from 0 (no disability) to 100 (severe disability).

MRI

MRI helps differentiate the morphologic changes of lateral epicondylitis, with similar diagnostic specificity to but greater sensitivity than ultrasonography.[21] In clinical trials, MRI has been used to evaluate responses to treatments for lateral epicondylitis. For example, in a trial of 30 patients randomly assigned to undergo corticosteroid injection or immobilization, MRI detected persistent degenerative changes at the 6-week follow-up visit in 66% of patients who had achieved clinical remission.[22] MRI findings may also correlate with clinical symptoms: in a recent study of 51 patients with lateral epicondylitis, MRI findings were significantly associated with the pain VAS scores reported by patients (P = .03).[23]

For the routine care of lateral epicondylitis, the role of MRI in patient evaluation and treatment decision making has been less clear. Broadly, an imaging study should provide data to make a diagnosis or direct treatment. However, lateral epicondylitis is a clinical diagnosis and, to date, MRI has not been useful in directing treatment modalities.[24] In fact, using MRI increases healthcare costs and does not affect diagnosis or surgical/nonsurgical management.[24] Substantial cost savings would occur if MRI were not used in the routine management of this condition.

Findings from a recent observational study of 44,471 patients enrolled in a national insurance claims database show the complex relationship between MRI use and treatment choices.[16] The study included records from patients who were diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis between 2008 and 2016 and examined national and regional patterns in MRI use and rates of surgical treatment, corticosteroid injections, and physical/occupational therapy.[16]

In total, only 998 (2.2%) of the 44,471 patients included in the study underwent MRI. Longitudinal trends, however, showed a steady increase in MRI use.[16] Nationwide, the annual rate of MRI use for lateral epicondylitis increased by 65% between 2008 and 2016. MRI use was more common in the South, where patients were 36% more likely to undergo MRI than patients in the Midwest (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.59; P < .001). Although regional variations exist, they cannot be necessarily explained by a single factor. Moreover, despite the lengthy and self-limiting natural history of lateral epicondylitis, many clinicians chose to use MRI early in the disease course. In fact, nearly one-third of MRI scans occurred within 90 days of the initial diagnosis.[16]

This study also found that MRI use was associated with the increased use of surgical and nonsurgical interventions (Table 2).[16] Among patients who underwent MRI, 20.3% received surgical treatment, compared with 2.1% of patients who did not undergo MRI. This represents an 11-fold increase in the likelihood of surgical treatment after MRI (OR, 11.0; 95% CI, 9.3-13.0; P < .0001). In addition, patients who underwent MRI were nearly twice as likely to receive a steroid injection (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.65-2.20; P < .0001) and twice as likely to receive physical/occupational therapy (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.70-2.41; P < .0001).[16]

MRI use was also associated with increased healthcare costs in this study. The average total reimbursement for lateral epicondylitis treatment was $1,824 for patients who underwent MRI and $103 for patients who did not undergo MRI (P < .0001).[16]

Table 2. Treatment and Reimbursement for Lateral Epicondylitis by MRI Statusa

 

Underwent MRI

(n = 998)

Did Not Undergo MRI

(n = 43,473)

OR (95% CI)

P Value

Treatment

 

 

 

 

Surgery, %

20.3

2.1

11.0 (9.3-13.0)

< .0001

Corticosteroid injection

NA

NA

1.90 (1.65-2.20)

< .0001

PT/OT

NA

NA

2.03 (1.70-2.41)

< .0001

Mean reimbursement, $

1,824

103

NA

< .0001

NA = not available; PT/OT = physical or occupational therapy.
aData derived from Fogel N, Zhuang T, Shapiro LM, et al. Utilization of MRI in diagnosis and treatment of tennis elbow in the United States. Presented at: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Annual Meeting; August 31-September 4, 2021; San Diego, CA. Abstract 144.

CONCLUSION

To date, evidence does not support the use of imaging to guide treatment decisions in the routine care of lateral epicondylitis. Ultrasonography appears useful only in supporting a differential diagnosis when clinical diagnosis is challenging and in improving the accuracy of needle positioning for corticosteroid injections. Radiographic images do not provide any additional insight, beyond what can be determined clinically, to inform diagnosis or treatment decisions. The increasing use of MRI, particularly in the acute setting, appears to contribute to the possible overuse of surgical treatment while increasing healthcare expenses. Decreasing the use of unnecessary imaging can help decrease costs without adversely affecting evidence-based care for patients with lateral epicondylitis.

  • Print