Endoscopic cubital tunnel release: a systematic review

A Cadaveric Study of Thread Cubital Tunnel Release with Newly Developed Threads

Objective

The percutaneous thread transection technique is a surgical dissecting method using a dissecting thread inserted through a needle under ultrasound guidance without skin incision. As the new dissecting threads were developed domestically, this cadaver study was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety between the new threads (ultra V sswire and smartwire-01) and a pre-existing commercial dissecting thread (loop & shear) by demonstrating a modified looped thread cubital tunnel release.

Methods

The percutaneous cubital tunnel release procedure was performed on 29 fresh cadaveric upper extremities. The preexisting commercial thread was used in 5 upper extremities. The two newly developed threads were used in 24 upper extremities. Two practitioners performed the procedures separately. After the modified looped thread cubital release, anatomical and histological analyses were performed by a blinded anatomist. The presence of the dissected cubital tunnel and damaged adjacent soft tissue was assessed.

Results

Out of the 29 cadaveric upper extremities, 27 specimens showed complete dissection of the Osborne ligament and the proximal fascia of the flexor carpi ulnaris muscle. One specimen was incompletely dissected in each of the ultra V sswire and smartwire-01 groups. There were no injuries of adjacent structures including the ulnar nerve, ulnar artery, medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve, or flexor tendon with either the commercial thread or the newly developed threads. The anatomical analysis revealed clear and sharp incisional margins of the cubital tunnel in the Smartwire-01 and loop & shear groups. All three kinds of threads maintained proper linear elasticity for easy handling during the procedure. The smartwire-01 provided higher visibility in ultrasound than the other threads.

Conclusion

The newly developed threads were effective and safe for use in the thread cubital tunnel release procedure.

Nerve entrapment around elbow

Entrapment neuropathy around elbow is a common cause of disability across all age groups. The major nerves that traverse the elbow are ulnar, median and radial nerves and their branches. Cubital tunnel syndrome leading to ulnar nerve compression can often present with significant pain, paresthesia or weakness. Median and Radial nerve compression around the elbow, albeit less frequent, can also lead to significant morbidity and must be kept in the differential diagnosis when dealing with patients complaining of persistent pain around the elbow and weakness of forearm/hand muscles. Electrodiagnostic studies can be a useful adjunct to clinical examination, to help localize the site and quantify the grade of compression. Management should involve a trial of conservative treatment and failing that, surgical treatment should be considered. We hereby provide an overview of nerve entrapments around the elbow including their applied anatomy, etiology, clinical assessment and overview of the current concepts in surgical treatment.

Safety and Outcomes of Different Surgical Techniques for Cubital Tunnel Decompression: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common compressive neuropathy, affecting 6% of the population. Numerous different operations are performed globally to treat it; however, prior conventional (pairwise) meta-analyses have been unable to determine which procedure is associated with the best outcomes and fewest complications.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate which operation for cubital tunnel syndrome is associated with the greatest likelihood of symptomatic cure.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from database inception to March 2, 2019, with no restrictions on the setting or design of studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Experimental and observational studies directly comparing the outcomes of at least 2 surgical treatments for adults with primary cubital tunnel syndrome were included. Case reports were excluded, and when comparative studies had subgroups with 1 participant, the single-participant subgroup was excluded. The treatments had to be in situ decompression with or without medial epicondylectomy or an anterior subcutaneous, subfascial, intramuscular, or submuscular transposition. The access could be open, minimally invasive, or endoscopic. The comparator could be sham surgery or any operation mentioned earlier.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline and the PRISMA Network Meta-analysis extension statement. Network meta-analysis was used to estimate the relative efficacy and safety associated with interventions using relative risks. Surgical techniques were ranked by their probability of being the best (P score) and interpreted in terms of their clinical impact.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was response to treatment (ie, symptomatic improvement). The secondary outcomes were perioperative complications, reoperation, and recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies of 2894 limbs undergoing 8 different operations were included. Across the studies, 56% of participants were men, the mean (SD) age was 48 (8) years, and patients had symptoms for a mean (SD) of 15 (7) months. Overall, 87% (95% CI, 92%-91%) of patients improved with surgery; all forms of in situ decompression were more effective than any type of transposition procedure; for example, open in situ decompression with epicondylectomy was associated with higher success rates than subcutaneous transposition (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.25). Postoperatively, 3% (95% CI, 2%-4%) of patients developed complications, and in situ decompressions were ranked as the least risky, although there was considerable uncertainty in this outcome. Overall, 2% (95% CI, 1%-3%) of patients required reoperation; open in situ decompression was associated with the fewest reoperations; in comparison, submuscular transposition was associated with 5 times the risk of reoperation (relative risk, 5.08; 95% CI, 2.06-12.52). During surveillance, 3% (95% CI, 1%-4%) of patients developed recurrence, and open in situ decompression with epicondylectomy was ranked as the safest operation, although there was uncertainty in the estimates.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this network meta-analysis, open in situ decompression (with or without medial epicondylectomy) appeared to be the safest operation and also was associated with the best outcomes for patients with primary cubital tunnel syndrome. Future research should focus on better defining this disorder and developing core outcome measures.

Patient-Related Risk Factors for Infection Following Ulnar Nerve Release at the Cubital Tunnel: An Analysis of 15,188 Cases

BACKGROUND

Although cubital tunnel release is a commonly performed orthopaedic procedure, the overall incidence of and independent risk factors for infection largely remain undefined in the current literature.

PURPOSE

To establish the rate of postoperative infection after isolated cubital tunnel release and define relevant patient-related risk factors.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level 3.

METHODS

All Medicare-insured patients undergoing ulnar nerve decompression at the cubital tunnel from 2010 through 2012 were identified. A multivariate binomial logistic regression analysis was utilized to evaluate the impact of patient-related risk factors for postoperative infection.

RESULTS

A total of 330 (2.17%) postoperative infections were identified in 15,188 cases. The majority (87%) were managed nonoperatively, while 13% required surgical debridement. The most significant risk factors for infection included hemodialysis use (odds ratio [OR], 2.47), chronic anemia (OR, 2.24), age <65 years (OR, 2.08), tobacco use (OR, 1.65), morbid obesity (OR, 1.53), inflammatory arthritis (OR, 1.43), depression (OR, 1.36), hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.33), male sex (OR, 1.32), and chronic lung disease (OR, 1.29).

CONCLUSION

The present study was adequately powered to determine numerous patient-related risk factors for infection following cubital tunnel release.