Cubital tunnel syndrome: a comparison of an endoscopic technique with a minimal invasive open technique

Bolster, Maj; Zöphel, OT; Heuvel, van den Wim; Ruettermann, Mike

doi:10.1177/1753193413498547

Cited by 50 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Data from 3 studies 3,8,30 that compared ECTuR with OCTuR were pooled for meta-analysis. Analysis was done for 2 outcomes: (1) clinical improvement and (2) complications.…”

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital Tunnel Release

Aldekhayel

Govshievich

Lee

et al. 2016

Hand (New York, N,Y.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Several surgical techniques exist for treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. Endoscopic cubital tunnel release (ECTuR) has been recently reported as a promising minimally invasive technique. This study aims to compare outcomes and complications of open cubital tunnel release (OCTuR) and ECTuR in the treatment of idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome. Methods: A systematic review of the literature identified 118 citations. Studies including adults with idiopathic cubital tunnel treated exclusively by ECTuR or OCTuR were included. Outcomes of interest were postoperative grading, complications, number of reoperations, and the need for intraoperative conversion to another technique. Postoperative outcomes were combined into a uniform scale with 4 categories: "excellent," "good," "fair," and "poor." Results: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria (17 observational and 3 comparative), representing 425 open and 556 endoscopic decompressions. In the open group, 79.8% experienced "good" or "excellent" results with 12% complication rate and 2.8% reoperation rate. In the endoscopic group, 81.8% experienced "good" or "excellent" results with 9% complication rate and 1.6% reoperation rate. Meta-analysis of 3 comparative studies demonstrated a significantly lower overall complication rate with ECTuR. Subgroup analysis of complications revealed a significantly higher incidence of scar tenderness and elbow pain with OCTuR. Conclusions: The current study demonstrates similar effectiveness between the endoscopic (ECTuR) and open (OCTuR) techniques for treatment of idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome with similar outcomes, complication profiles, and reoperation rates.

show abstract

“…Data from 3 studies 3,8,30 that compared ECTuR with OCTuR were pooled for meta-analysis. Analysis was done for 2 outcomes: (1) clinical improvement and (2) complications.…”

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital Tunnel Release

Aldekhayel

Govshievich

Lee

et al. 2016

Hand (New York, N,Y.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12,13 When the main underlying cause of the secondary CuTS is heavy scarring, the objective of surgical intervention will be relieving compression, which is basically achieved either via formal open in situ decompression of the ulnar nerve with or without external/internal neurolysis throughout the entire cubital tunnel together with preserving neural vascularity or via more conservative endoscopic technique that would avoid more scarring. [13][14][15][16][17] However, in the authors' view, the formal open in situ decompression will be more suitable for the cases of both groups involved in this study due to the heavy tough scarring encountered in all cases that could not be amenable to release via endoscopic technique. Currently, the goals are expanded to include relieving compression neuropathy of the ulnar nerve and preventing postoperative adhesions, thus minimizing recurrence rate which puts the foundation for orthobiologic nerve insulators.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autogenous Vein Wrapping versus In Situ Decompression for Management of Secondary Cubital Tunnel Syndrome after Surgical Fixation of Elbow Fractures: Short-Term Functional and Neurophysiological Outcome

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose?The aim of this study was to compare the functional and neurophysiological outcome of in situ decompression versus in situ decompression augmented with autogenous vein wrapping in management of secondary cubital tunnel syndrome at the elbow following fixation of elbow fractures. Methods?A prospective comparative randomized study was performed on 29 patients who were divided into two groups: group I (in situ decompression) and group II (in situ decompression augmented with autogenous vein wrapping). We measured the patients' demographics, subjective reports of symptoms, and objective evaluation of the functional and neurophysiological outcomes of both groups. Results?Group II patients achieved statistically better results in both neurophysiological scoring and clinical sensory rating but not in all other parameters. Conclusion?Autogenous vein wrapping for secondary cubital tunnel syndrome after elbow fracture fixation only provides a better sensory outcome. Level of Evidence?Level II, therapeutic prospective comparative study.

show abstract

“…Surgical treatments are recommended for patients who have not responded to non-surgical intervention that includes simple decompression, in which Osborne's band can be released using either open or endoscopic surgical methods, medial epicondylectomy, and anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve by intramuscular, submuscular, or subcutaneous placement of the nerve. Studies reported that no certain surgical method has encouraging outcomes, so in patients with an advanced stage of cubital tunnel syndrome, anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve should be considered as it can release the nerve and resolve the dynamic factors involved in cubital tunnel syndrome [4][5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of cubital tunnel syndrome by anterior trans-muscular transposition of the ulnar nerve

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Various surgical options are used for the treatment of ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. In this study, anterior trans-muscular transposition of the ulnar nerve was used for the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. Objectives: To evaluate the surgical results of anterior trans-muscular transposition technique for the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome with particular emphasis on clinical outcome. Methods: Forty patients with cubital tunnel syndrome were operated using anterior trans-muscular transposition technique. Patients were classified into post-operative clinical outcome grades according to the Wilson & Krout criteria, and they were followed up by visual analog scale (VAS), the Disability of Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, electrophysiological study, and post-operative clinical evaluation. Results: Forty patients with cubital tunnel syndrome who underwent anterior trans-muscular transposition of the ulnar nerve show a significant clinical improvement at 24 months post-surgery regarding visual analog scale (VAS), the Disability of Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, electrophysiological study, and the Wilson & Krout grading as 87.5% of the patients recorded excellent and good outcome. Conclusion: Anterior transmuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve is a safe and effective treatment for ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow.

show abstract

Cubital tunnel syndrome: a comparison of an endoscopic technique with a minimal invasive open technique

Cited by 50 publications

References 14 publications

Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital Tunnel Release

Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital Tunnel Release

Autogenous Vein Wrapping versus In Situ Decompression for Management of Secondary Cubital Tunnel Syndrome after Surgical Fixation of Elbow Fractures: Short-Term Functional and Neurophysiological Outcome

Management of cubital tunnel syndrome by anterior trans-muscular transposition of the ulnar nerve

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About