Hong-wei Chen1, Shan Ou2, Guo-dong Liu3, Jun Fei4, Gang-sheng Zhao1, Li-jun Wu5, Jun Pan6. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Central Hospital of Yiwu City, Yiwu 322000, China. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, General Hospital of Chengdu Military Command, Chengdu 610083, China. 3. 8th Department, Research Institute of Surgery, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400042, China. Electronic address: liuguodonglgd@hotmail.com. 4. Traumatic Center, Research Institute of Surgery, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400042, China. 5. Digital Medical Research Institute, Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou 325027, China. 6. Department of Orthopedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou 325027, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of simple decompression (SD) versus anterior transposition (AT) of the ulnar nerve for the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. METHODS: Seven public databases (PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE, Springer, Elsevier Science Direct, Cochrane Library and Google scholar) were searched from 1971 to December 2013. The overall odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled to compare the clinical outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the region, study type, Jadad score, type of AT, and follow-up duration. Meta-analysis was conducted by using Rev. Man 5.1 and Stata 11.0 software. RESULTS: Finally, we included 13 studies involved 1009 (500 patients receiving SD and 509 patients receiving AT) patients with cubital tunnel syndrome. The overall estimate (OR=0.91, 95% CI=0.67-1.23, P=0.536) indicated that there was no significantly statistical difference between the clinical outcomes of patients treated with SD and AT. Meanwhile, subgroup analyses by region, study type, Jadad score, type of AT and follow-up duration showed the consistent results with the overall estimate. In addition, we found that the incidence of complications in patients treated by SD was significantly lower than that in patients treated by AT (OR=0.32, 95% CI=0.17-0.60, P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, although SD had equivalent clinical outcomes with AT for the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome, SD should be preferred due to having lower incidence of complications.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of simple decompression (SD) versus anterior transposition (AT) of the ulnar nerve for the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. METHODS: Seven public databases (PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE, Springer, Elsevier Science Direct, Cochrane Library and Google scholar) were searched from 1971 to December 2013. The overall odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled to compare the clinical outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the region, study type, Jadad score, type of AT, and follow-up duration. Meta-analysis was conducted by using Rev. Man 5.1 and Stata 11.0 software. RESULTS: Finally, we included 13 studies involved 1009 (500 patients receiving SD and 509 patients receiving AT) patients with cubital tunnel syndrome. The overall estimate (OR=0.91, 95% CI=0.67-1.23, P=0.536) indicated that there was no significantly statistical difference between the clinical outcomes of patients treated with SD and AT. Meanwhile, subgroup analyses by region, study type, Jadad score, type of AT and follow-up duration showed the consistent results with the overall estimate. In addition, we found that the incidence of complications in patients treated by SD was significantly lower than that in patients treated by AT (OR=0.32, 95% CI=0.17-0.60, P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, although SD had equivalent clinical outcomes with AT for the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome, SD should be preferred due to having lower incidence of complications.
Authors: Kamal Mezian; Jakub Jačisko; Radek Kaiser; Stanislav Machač; Petra Steyerová; Karolína Sobotová; Yvona Angerová; Ondřej Naňka Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 4.003