Surgical management of cubital tunnel syndrome: a comparative analysis of outcome using four different techniques

Endoscopic cubital tunnel decompression: state of the art

Cubital tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the upper limb. Surgical decompression is indicated for patients who failed conservative therapy. Decompression in situ has shown to achieve comparable outcomes as decompression with anterior transposition in idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome. Endoscopic cubital tunnel decompression has gained popularity in recent years, as surgeons can attain decompression of the ulnar nerve along its course using a small incision. Results from randomised controlled studies and systematic reviews, comparing endoscopic with open decompression in situ, are promising. Cases in which anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve is needed, an endoscopic technique can still be used by creating an additional volar portal, for the mobilisation of ulnar nerve. Early short-term results are encouraging. Further adequately powered, prospective, preferably double-blinded, randomised study are needed.

Endoscopic cubital tunnel decompression - Review of the literature

Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common compressive neuropathy of the upper limb. Endoscopic cubital tunnel decompression has gained popularity in recent years as this enables surgeons to achieve decompression of the ulnar nerve along its course using a small incision. This article describes the technical peals in performing endoscopic cubital tunnel decompression. In conditions which anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve is needed, subcutaneous transposition can be performed under endoscopic guidance. In addition, current literature is reviewed, and outcomes are presented. While short term results are encouraging, further prospective randomized study with longer follow-up is recommended.

Reporting Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Comparison between studies assessing outcomes after surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS) has proven to be difficult owing to variations in outcome reporting. This study aimed to identify outcomes and outcome measures used to evaluate postoperative results for CuTS.

METHODS

We performed computerized database searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Studies with 20 or more patients aged 18 and older who were undergoing medial epicondylectomy, endoscopic decompression, open simple decompression, or decompression with subcutaneous, submuscular, or intramuscular transposition for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow were included. Outcomes and outcome measures were extracted and tabulated.

RESULTS

Of the 101 studies included, 45 unique outcomes and 31 postoperative outcome measures were identified. These included 7 condition-specific, clinician-reported instruments; 4 condition-specific, clinician-reported instruments; 8 patient-reported, generic instruments; 11 clinician-generated instruments; and one utility measure. Outcome measures were divided into 6 unique domains. Overall, 60% of studies used condition-specific outcome measures. The frequency of any condition-specific outcome measure ranged from 1% to 37% of included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is marked heterogeneity in outcomes and outcome measures used to assess CuTS. A standardized core outcome set is needed to compare results of various techniques of cubital tunnel decompression.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study builds on the existing literature to support the notion that there is marked heterogeneity in outcomes and outcome measures used to assess CuTS. The authors believe that a future standardized set of core outcomes is needed to limit heterogeneity among studies assessing postoperative outcomes in CuTS to compare these interventions more easily and pool results in the form of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing open versus endoscopic in situ decompression for the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome

To examine whether endoscopic in situ decompression (EISD) or open in situ decompression (OISD) would have superior outcomes with lower morbidity in patients with idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome, we reviewed all studies compared both surgical techniques with regard to postoperative outcomes and complication profile in a systematic review design with meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers conducted a PRISMA-compliant search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies about clinical comparisons of OISD and EISD in cubital tunnel syndrome. We performed all meta-analyses with the Review Manager 5.3 software. For dichotomous variables, the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. For continuous variables, the mean difference (MD) and 95% CIs were calculated. The level of significance was set as p < 0.05. Finally, 8 articles with 582 patients finally were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the difference in Bishop score, visual analogue scale score reduction, postoperative satisfaction, postoperative hematoma rate and secondary surgical procedures were not statistically significant between the EISD group and the OISD group (p > 0.05). However, pooled results showed that patients who underwent EISD had a greater improvement in the scar tenderness/elbow pain than did those who underwent OISD with statistical significance (p < 0.0001). This meta-analysis demonstrated that EISD and OISD for surgical treating cubital tunnel syndrome had equivalent efficacy regarding postoperative clinical recovery, whereas the incidences of adverse events of EISD were also same as those with the OISD technique.

Surgical Approaches and Their Outcomes in the Treatment of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Purpose: This review was undertaken in order to provide an updated summary of the current literature on outcomes for various surgical treatments for cubital tunnel syndrome.

Methods: Studies reporting outcomes for surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome were collected through the PubMed database. Study structure, number of participants/procedures, mean follow-up times, scoring scales, and outcomes were collected according to the type of surgery: open decompression, endoscopic decompression, minimal incision, subcutaneous transposition, intramuscular transposition, and submuscular transposition.

Results: Our findings indicate varying but comparable levels of success among all surgical techniques reviewed. Many different scoring scales were utilized, limiting direct quantitative comparison between most studies.

Discussion: While some studies directly compared two or more techniques, there was rarely a statistically significant difference between groups. In comparisons that did reach statistically significant differences, there were others yet that found no difference in comparing the same techniques.

Conclusions: None of the techniques in this review has demonstrated universal superiority above all others, but all appear to be effective in the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. The only consensus seems to be that transposition is preferred where the ulnar nerve tends to subluxate either on preoperative or intraoperative examination.

Open versus endoscopic in situ decompression in cubital tunnel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between open and endoscopic in situ decompression surgery methods for cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS).

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and CNKI were searched for eligible studies. The data were extracted by two of the coauthors (WL, BYF) independently and were analyzed using RevMan statistical software, version 5.1. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included for systematic review, and six studies were included for meta-analysis. The CuTS patients received open in situ decompression (OISD) or endoscopic in situ decompression (EISD). A pooled analysis of postoperative Bishop score showed that the difference was not statistically significant between the EISD group and the OISD group (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.88-1.12, P = 0.88). The overall estimate of postoperative satisfaction between the EISD group and the OISD group was not found to be significant (RR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.89-1.08, P = 0.70). The overall estimate of complications (RR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.24-3.29, P = 0.85) suggested that the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

EISD and OISD for treating CuTS have equivalent efficacy for postoperative clinical improvement, whereas the incidences of complications of endoscopic surgical procedure were also same as those with the open surgical procedure. In situ decompression (especially EISD, with minor intraoperative trauma) could be treated as a valuable alternative to treat CuTS.

Subcutaneous Versus Submuscular Anterior Transposition of the Ulnar Nerve for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

Subcutaneous and submuscular anterior ulnar nerve transposition have been widely used in patients with cubital tunnel syndrome. However, the reliable evidence in favor of 1 of 2 surgical options on clinical improvement remains controversial. To maximize the value of the available literature, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare subcutaneous versus submuscular anterior ulnar nerve transposition in patients with ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized and observational studies that compared subcutaneous transposition with submuscular transposition of ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. The primary outcome was clinically relevant improvement in function compared to the baseline. Randomized and observational studies were separately analyzed with relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 7 observational studies, involving 605 patients, were included. Our meta-analysis suggested that no significant differences in the primary outcomes were observed between comparison groups, both in RCT (RR, 1.16; 95% CI 0.68-1.98; P = 0.60; I2= 81%) and observational studies (RR, 1.01; 95% CI 0.95-1.08; P = 0.69; I2 = 0%). These findings were also consistent with all subgroup analyses for observational studies. In the secondary outcomes, the incidence of adverse events was significantly lower in subcutaneous group than in submuscular group (RR, 0.54; 95% CI 0.33-0.87; P = 0.01; I2 = 0%), whereas subcutaneous transposition failed to reveal more superiority than submuscular transposition in static two-point discrimination (MD, 0.04; 95% CI -0.18-0.25; P = 0.74; I = 0%). The available evidence is not adequately powered to identify the best anterior ulnar nerve transposition technique for cubital tunnel syndrome on the basis of clinical outcomes, that is, suggests that subcutaneous and submuscular anterior transposition might be equally effective in terms of postoperative clinical improvement. However, differences in clinical outcomes metrics should be noted, and these findings largely rely on the outcomes data from observational studies that are potentially subject to a high risk of selection bias. Therefore, more high-quality and adequately powered RCTs with standardized clinical outcomes metrics are necessary for proper comparison of these techniques.

Endoscopic cubital tunnel release: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Theoretical advantages of endoscopic cubital tunnel release are the short incision, lower risk of nerve damage, reduced manipulation of the nerve and possible faster recovery.

SOURCES OF DATA

We systematically searched Medline (PubMed), Web of Science and Scopus databases using the following keywords: 'endoscopic ulnar nerve', 'endoscopic cubital nerve', 'endoscopic ulnar compression' and 'endoscopic ulnar neuropathy'. Twenty-one studies were included in this review. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Coleman Methodological Score.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Endoscopic release is effective for cubital tunnel entrapment and allows adequate visualization of the site of entrapment. There is a negative association between the severity of the compression and reported outcomes. Injury to the medial branch of the antebrachial cutaneous nerve is less frequent thanks to the limited dissection. The most frequent complication is the development of a hematoma.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

It is unclear whether ulnar nerve instability is a contraindication to simple decompression.

GROWING POINTS

The shorter time to return to work and the cosmetic appearance of the scar can be considered advantages of the endoscopic technique.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

There is a need to perform randomized clinical trials with common and validated scoring system with a longer duration of follow-up. The literature pertinent to endoscopic cubital tunnel release is lacking in the evaluation of the learning curve. Further investigations are necessary to assess the role of ulnar nerve instability.