BACKGROUND: Many instruments have been developed to measure upper extremity disability, but few have been applied to ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE). OBJECTIVE: We measured patient outcomes following ulnar nerve decompression to (1) identify the most appropriate outcomes tools for UNE and (2) to describe outcomes following ulnar nerve decompression. METHODS: Thirty-nine patients from 5 centers were followed prospectively after nerve decompression. Outcomes were measured preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively. Each patient completed the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ), Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (CTQ), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaires. Grip, key-pinch strength, Semmes-Weinstein monofilament, and 2-point discrimination were measured. Construct validity was calculated by using Spearman correlation coefficients between questionnaire scores and physical and sensory measures. Responsiveness was assessed by standardized response means. RESULTS: Key-pinch (P = .008) and Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing of the ulnar ring (P < .001) and small finger (radial: P = .004; ulnar: P < .001) improved following decompression. Two-point discrimination improved significantly across the radial (P = .009) and ulnar (P = .007) small finger. Improved symptoms and function were noted by the CTQ (preoperative CTQ symptom score 2.73 vs 1.90 postoperatively, P < .001), DASH (P < .001), and MHQ: function (P < .001), activities of daily living (P = .003), work (P = .006), pain (P < .001), and satisfaction (P < .001). All surveys demonstrated strong construct validity, defined by correlation with functional outcomes, but MHQ and CTQ symptom instruments demonstrated the highest responsiveness. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported outcomes improve following ulnar nerve decompression, including pain, function, and satisfaction. The MHQ and CTQ are more responsive than the DASH for isolated UNE treated with decompression.
BACKGROUND: Many instruments have been developed to measure upper extremity disability, but few have been applied to ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE). OBJECTIVE: We measured patient outcomes following ulnar nerve decompression to (1) identify the most appropriate outcomes tools for UNE and (2) to describe outcomes following ulnar nerve decompression. METHODS: Thirty-nine patients from 5 centers were followed prospectively after nerve decompression. Outcomes were measured preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively. Each patient completed the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ), Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (CTQ), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaires. Grip, key-pinch strength, Semmes-Weinstein monofilament, and 2-point discrimination were measured. Construct validity was calculated by using Spearman correlation coefficients between questionnaire scores and physical and sensory measures. Responsiveness was assessed by standardized response means. RESULTS: Key-pinch (P = .008) and Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing of the ulnar ring (P < .001) and small finger (radial: P = .004; ulnar: P < .001) improved following decompression. Two-point discrimination improved significantly across the radial (P = .009) and ulnar (P = .007) small finger. Improved symptoms and function were noted by the CTQ (preoperative CTQ symptom score 2.73 vs 1.90 postoperatively, P < .001), DASH (P < .001), and MHQ: function (P < .001), activities of daily living (P = .003), work (P = .006), pain (P < .001), and satisfaction (P < .001). All surveys demonstrated strong construct validity, defined by correlation with functional outcomes, but MHQ and CTQ symptom instruments demonstrated the highest responsiveness. CONCLUSION:Patient-reported outcomes improve following ulnar nerve decompression, including pain, function, and satisfaction. The MHQ and CTQ are more responsive than the DASH for isolated UNE treated with decompression.
Authors: D W Levine; B P Simmons; M J Koris; L H Daltroy; G G Hohl; A H Fossel; J N Katz Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 1993-11 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Ronald H M A Bartels; Wim I M Verhagen; Gert Jan van der Wilt; Jan Meulstee; Leo G M van Rossum; J André Grotenhuis Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Dirk L Knol; Paul W Stratford; Jordi Alonso; Donald L Patrick; Lex M Bouter; Henrica Cw de Vet Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Brandon W Smith; Sarada Sakamuri; Kara E Flavin; Michael Jensen; David A Purger; Lynda J-S Yang; Robert J Spinner; Thomas J Wilson Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2021-05-15 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Patricia B Burns; H Myra Kim; R Glenn Gaston; Steven C Haase; Warren C Hammert; Jeffrey N Lawton; Greg A Merrell; Paul F Nassab; Lynda J Yang; Kevin C Chung Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-11-16 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Nicholas F Hug; Brandon W Smith; Sarada Sakamuri; Michael Jensen; David A Purger; Robert J Spinner; Thomas J Wilson Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 2.216