Literature DB >> 24721248

Cubital tunnel syndrome: comparative results of a multicenter study of 4 surgical techniques with a mean follow-up of 92 months.

G Bacle1, E Marteau2, M Freslon3, P Desmoineaux4, Y Saint-Cast5, R Lancigu5, Y Kerjean6, E Vernet6, J Fournier2, P Corcia7, D Le Nen8, F Rabarin5, J Laulan2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most frequent entrapment syndrome. Physiopathology is mixed, and treatment options are multiple, none having yet proved superior efficacy.
OBJECTIVES: The present retrospective multicenter study compared results and rates of complications and recurrence between the 4 main cubital tunnel syndrome treatments, to identify trends and optimize outcome. MATERIALAND
METHODS: Patients presenting with primary clinical cubital tunnel syndrome diagnosed on electroneuromyography were included and operated on using 1 of the following 4 techniques: open or endoscopic in situ decompression, or subcutaneous or submuscular anterior transposition. Four specialized upper-limb surgery centers participated, each systematically performing 1 of the above procedures. Subjective and objective results and rates of complications and recurrence were compared at end of follow-up.
RESULTS: Five hundred and two patients were included and 375 followed up for a mean 92 months (range, 9-144 months); 103 were lost to follow-up and 24 died. Whichever the procedure, more than 90% of patients were cured or showed improvement. There was a single case of scar pain at end of follow-up, managed by endoscopic decompression; there were no other long-term complications. None of the 4 techniques aggravated symptoms. There were 6 recurrences by end of follow-up: 1 associated with open in situ decompression and 5 with submuscular transposition.
CONCLUSION: Surgery was effective in treating cubital tunnel syndrome. Submuscular anterior transposition was associated with recurrence. In contrast to literature reports, subcutaneous anterior transposition, which is a reliable and valid technique, was not associated with a higher complication rate than in situ decompression. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV. Multicenter retrospective.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anterior transposition; Cubital tunnel syndrome; Endoscopic release; In situ decompression; McGowan grading system

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24721248     DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2014.03.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res        ISSN: 1877-0568            Impact factor:   2.256


  16 in total

1.  Endoscopically Assisted Anterior Subcutaneous Transposition of Ulnar Nerve.

Authors:  Tun Hing Lui
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2016-06-20

2.  Trends in the Surgical Treatment for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: A Survey of Members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand.

Authors:  Ayesha Yahya; Andrew R Malarkey; Ryan L Eschbaugh; H Brent Bamberger
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2017-08-23

Review 3.  Open Versus Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel In Situ Decompression: A Systematic Review of Outcomes and Complications.

Authors:  Alexander Toirac; Juan M Giugale; John R Fowler
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2016-08-02

4.  Trends in Open and Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release in the Medicare Patient Population.

Authors:  Tsun Yee Law; Zachary S Hubbard; Lee Onn Chieng; Harvey W Chim
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2016-11-15

5.  Ulnar Nerve In Situ Decompression versus Transposition for Idiopathic Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Joseph Said; Duncan Van Nest; Carol Foltz; Asif M Ilyas
Journal:  J Hand Microsurg       Date:  2018-09-27

6.  Percutaneous ultrasound-guided ulnar nerve release technique compared to open technique: A cadaveric study.

Authors:  Jad Mansour; Joe Ghanimeh; Abdelhamid Ghersi; Berenice Moutinot; Remy Coulomb; Pascal Kouyoumdjian; Olivier Mares
Journal:  SICOT J       Date:  2022-09-26

7.  Comparison of Surgical Encounter Direct Costs for Three Methods of Cubital Tunnel Decompression.

Authors:  Nikolas H Kazmers; Evangelia L Lazaris; Chelsea M Allen; Angela P Presson; Andrew R Tyser
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  Functional outcome after endoscopic assisted release of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome: mid-to-long term results.

Authors:  Christian K Spies; Melanie Schäfer; Martin F Langer; Thomas Bruckner; Lars P Müller; Frank Unglaub
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Novel minimally invasive technique in the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome.

Authors:  Syed I Khalid; Adam Carlton; Ryan Kelly; Jonathan Citow
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-03

10.  Comparison of In Situ Versus Subcutaneous Versus Submuscular Transpositions in the Management of McGowan Stage III Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.

Authors:  Ali Izadpanah; Christopher Gibbs; Robert J Spinner; Sanjeev Kakar
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2019-03-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.