BACKGROUND: Endoscopic cubital tunnel release has been proposed as an alternative to open in situ release. However, it is difficult to analyze outcomes after endoscopic release, as only a few small case series exist. METHODS: The electronic databases of PubMed (1960-June 2014) were systematically screened for studies related to endoscopic cubital tunnel release or open in situ cubital tunnel release. Baseline characteristics, clinical scores, and complication rates were abstracted. The binary outcome was defined as rate of excellent/good response versus fair/poor. Complications were recorded into 3 categories: wound problems, persistent ulnar nerve symptoms, and other. RESULTS: We included 8 articles that reported the clinical outcomes after surgical intervention including a total of 494 patients (344 endoscopic, 150 open in situ). The pooled rate of excellent/good was 92.0% (88.8%-95.2%) for endoscopic and 82.7% (76.15%-89.2%) for open. We identified 18 articles that detailed complications including a total of 1108 patients (691 endoscopic, 417 open). The 4 articles that listed complication rates for both endoscopic and open techniques were analyzed and showed a pooled odds ratio of 0.280 (95% confidence interval, 0.125-0.625), indicating that endoscopic patients have reduced odds of complications. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review suggest that there is a difference in clinical outcomes between the open in situ and endoscopic cubital tunnel release, with the endoscopic technique being superior in regard to both complication rates along with patient satisfaction.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic cubital tunnel release has been proposed as an alternative to open in situ release. However, it is difficult to analyze outcomes after endoscopic release, as only a few small case series exist. METHODS: The electronic databases of PubMed (1960-June 2014) were systematically screened for studies related to endoscopic cubital tunnel release or open in situ cubital tunnel release. Baseline characteristics, clinical scores, and complication rates were abstracted. The binary outcome was defined as rate of excellent/good response versus fair/poor. Complications were recorded into 3 categories: wound problems, persistent ulnar nerve symptoms, and other. RESULTS: We included 8 articles that reported the clinical outcomes after surgical intervention including a total of 494 patients (344 endoscopic, 150 open in situ). The pooled rate of excellent/good was 92.0% (88.8%-95.2%) for endoscopic and 82.7% (76.15%-89.2%) for open. We identified 18 articles that detailed complications including a total of 1108 patients (691 endoscopic, 417 open). The 4 articles that listed complication rates for both endoscopic and open techniques were analyzed and showed a pooled odds ratio of 0.280 (95% confidence interval, 0.125-0.625), indicating that endoscopic patients have reduced odds of complications. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review suggest that there is a difference in clinical outcomes between the open in situ and endoscopic cubital tunnel release, with the endoscopic technique being superior in regard to both complication rates along with patient satisfaction.
Authors: Ali M Soltani; Matthew J Best; Cameron S Francis; Bassan J Allan; Zubin J Panthaki Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 2.230
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