OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcomes of a novel percutaneous ultrasound-guided technique for release of ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow when compared to standard open release Methods: One single surgeon performed an ultrasound-guided percutaneous release of the cubital tunnel on a group of five cadaveric elbows and open release on five others. All procedures were timed, and incision lengths were recorded. Meticulous anatomic dissection was then performed to assess the complete release of the carpal tunnel and iatrogenic injuries. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of complete release and iatrogenic injury, whereas Operative time was significantly shorter for the US-guided technique. Incomplete releases of the nerve were found only during the first two trials in each group, while the third, fourth, and fifth trials showed a complete ulnar nerve release in both series, highlighting a fast learning curve for both techniques. All of this through a significantly smaller incision in the US-guided technique. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the similar effects of these two techniques in terms of complete release of the ulnar nerve, with no clear superiority of one over the other in terms of morbidity rate. Both have a fast learning curve for an ultrasound-trained surgeon, with the US-guided technique being a less traumatic and quicker alternative procedure.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcomes of a novel percutaneous ultrasound-guided technique for release of ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow when compared to standard open release Methods: One single surgeon performed an ultrasound-guided percutaneous release of the cubital tunnel on a group of five cadaveric elbows and open release on five others. All procedures were timed, and incision lengths were recorded. Meticulous anatomic dissection was then performed to assess the complete release of the carpal tunnel and iatrogenic injuries. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of complete release and iatrogenic injury, whereas Operative time was significantly shorter for the US-guided technique. Incomplete releases of the nerve were found only during the first two trials in each group, while the third, fourth, and fifth trials showed a complete ulnar nerve release in both series, highlighting a fast learning curve for both techniques. All of this through a significantly smaller incision in the US-guided technique. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the similar effects of these two techniques in terms of complete release of the ulnar nerve, with no clear superiority of one over the other in terms of morbidity rate. Both have a fast learning curve for an ultrasound-trained surgeon, with the US-guided technique being a less traumatic and quicker alternative procedure.
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: Zheng D Lan; Claudio E Tatsui; Ali Jalali; William E Humphries; Katheryn Rilea; Akash Patel; Bruce L Ehni Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2015-03-21 Impact factor: 1.961