The incidence of these complications is directly related to the surgeons selleck screening library experience in elbow arthroscopy [7, 18]. Antuna mentioned a risk for transient ulnar nerve paresthesia due to elongation if severe contractures were corrected [13]. Forster et al. mentioned ulnar nerve entrapment, a wound hematoma, a superficial infection, and a myocardial infarction [14]. Allen reported a supracondylar fracture that required open reduction and internal fixation [19]. Chandrasenan described an important heterotopic ossification in the triceps muscle after an open procedure, requiring surgical removal [20]. Although clinically insignificant, ectopic ossifications were also seen in some cases after an arthroscopic procedure [8, 15].

In our series, no complications were seen in the arthroscopic procedure, compared to a wound infection and a shoulder-hand syndrome in the open technique [8, 11]. With the arthroscopic procedure, first satisfactory results were reported in 1993 by Redden and Stanley [2]. Later on in 1995, O’Driscoll recommended arthroscopy to treat milder cases of osteoarthritis, reserving open debridement for more advanced cases [7]. In 1999, Savoie and Nunley reported overall good to excellent results in pain control and improved motion in a series of 24 patients, of whom 75% underwent an additional radial head resection [17]. Krishnan et al. reported good to excellent results in younger patients under fifty in 2007 (11 elbows), which somewhat extended the indications for the procedure [21].

This growing indication for the arthroscopic Outerbridge-Kashiwagi Dacomitinib procedure was illustrated by our group in 2009 when we reported on the procedure in young sportsmen, and in 2010, showing good results in 85% of 20 elbows [9, 22]. Mayo Performance Index improved from 54 to 88 and range of motion from 94�� to 123��. Compared to our earlier results after the (mini-) open procedure, these results show no disadvantage of the arthroscopic procedure. Rehabilitation is easier, faster and clinical results are comparable if pain, satisfaction, and motion gain are considered. In 2000, Cohen et al. also compared his results of open (18 elbows) and arthroscopic procedure (26 elbows) [23]. He reported an increased range of motion of 8�� and an improved pain score with 29% after arthroscopy in all elbows. In the open procedure, mobility improved with 19�� and pain with 20%, with no improvement in 17%. The author concluded that mobility improved more after the open procedure, possibly due to a more extensive debridement of the posterior compartment. However, even though both procedures are effective, Cohen et al. reported better results in the arthroscopic procedure due to a more significant pain relief [23].