Rates of Revision Surgery following In Situ Decompression versus Anterior Transposition for the Treatment of Idiopathic Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Abstract

Objective The current understanding of revision rates following surgery for the primary surgical treatment of idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS) remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to describe and compare the rate of revision surgery following in situ decompression (SD) versus anterior transposition (AT) after the surgical treatment of idiopathic CuTS and examine possible predicting variables for revision.

Materials and Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed at a single institution by querying records for all CuTS surgeries performed between January 2010 and December 2015. The initial query resulted in 1,967 cases. Exclusion criteria included acute trauma, concurrent unrelated primary elbow procedure, revision surgery, incomplete records, and age younger than 18 or older than 89 years. A total of 1,384 surgeries met criteria for study inclusion. A case–control study was then performed with 39 cases of revision and a group of 76 control cases that did not undergo revision surgery. Bivariate analysis followed by multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate predictors of revision.

Results Of the 1,384 procedures, 979 were SDs (70.7%) and 405 were ATs (29.3%). Among the 1,384 total procedures, there were 39 primary cubital tunnel surgeries resulting in a revision surgery (2.8%). The revision rate for SD was 3.1% and the revision rate for AT was 2.2%. Predictors of revision were younger age, increased nerve conduction velocity, and decreased duration of symptoms.

Conclusion In the surgical treatment of idiopathic CuTS, the overall revision rate is low (2.8%). This study found no significant difference in revision rate between SD and AT, but that risk for revision surgery overall was associated with younger age, increased nerve conduction velocity, and decreased duration of symptoms.

Level of Evidence This is a therapeutic, level III study.

Publication History

Article published online:
18 November 2019

• References

• 1 Osei DA, Groves AP, Bommarito K, Ray WZ. Cubital tunnel syndrome: incidence and demographics in a national administrative database. Neurosurgery 2017; 80 (03) 417-420
• 2 Dellon AL. Review of treatment results for ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. J Hand Surg Am 1989; 14 (04) 688-700
• 3 Caliandro P, La Torre G, Padua R, Giannini F, Padua L. Treatment for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (07) CD006839
• 4 Chan RC, Paine KW, Varughese G. Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: comparison of simple decompression and anterior transposition. Neurosurgery 1980; 7 (06) 545-550
• 5 Gervasio O, Gambardella G, Zaccone C, Branca D. Simple decompression versus anterior submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve in severe cubital tunnel syndrome: a prospective randomized study. Neurosurgery 2005; 56 (01) 108-117
• 6 Bartels RH, Verhagen WI, van der Wilt GJ, Meulstee J, van Rossum LG, Grotenhuis JA. Prospective randomized controlled study comparing simple decompression versus anterior subcutaneous transposition for idiopathic neuropathy of the ulnar nerve at the elbow: part 1. Neurosurgery 2005; 56 (03) 522-530
• 7 Biggs M, Curtis JA. Randomized, prospective study comparing ulnar neurolysis in situ with submuscular transposition. Neurosurgery 2006; 58 (02) 296-304
• 8 Krogue JD, Aleem AW, Osei DA, Goldfarb CA, Calfee RP. Predictors of surgical revision after in situ decompression of the ulnar nerve. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24 (04) 634-639
• 9 Kamat AS, Jay SM, Benoiton LA, Correia JA, Woon K. Comparative outcomes of ulnar nerve transposition versus neurolysis in patients with entrapment neuropathy at the cubital tunnel: a 20-year analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2014; 156 (01) 153-157
• 10 Bacle G, Marteau E, Freslon M. et al. Cubital tunnel syndrome: comparative results of a multicenter study of 4 surgical techniques with a mean follow-up of 92 months. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2014; 100 (Suppl. 04) S205-S208
• 11 Zhang D, Earp BE, Blazar P. Rates of complications and secondary surgeries after in situ cubital tunnel release compared with ulnar nerve transposition: a retrospective review. J Hand Surg Am 2017; 42 (04) 294.e1-294.e5
• 12 Goldfarb CA, Sutter MM, Martens EJ, Manske PR. Incidence of re-operation and subjective outcome following in situ decompression of the ulnar nerve at the cubital tunnel. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2009; 34 (03) 379-383
• 13 Gaspar MP, Kane PM, Putthiwara D, Jacoby SM, Osterman AL. Predicting revision following in situ ulnar nerve decompression for patients with idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am 2016; 41 (03) 427-435
• 14 Barrios C, Ganoza C, de Pablos J, Cañadell J. Posttraumatic ulnar neuropathy versus non-traumatic cubital tunnel syndrome: clinical features and response to surgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1991; 110 (1-2) 44-48
• 15 Palmer BA, Hughes TB. Cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am 2010; 35 (01) 153-163
• 16 Foster RJ, Edshage S. Factors related to the outcome of surgically managed compressive ulnar neuropathy at the elbow level. J Hand Surg Am 1981; 6 (02) 181-192
• 17 Yamamoto K, Shishido T, Masaoka T, Katori Y, Tanaka S. Postoperative clinical results in cubital tunnel syndrome. Orthopedics 2006; 29 (04) 347-353
• 18 Tong J, Xu B, Dong Z, Zhang C, Gu Y. Surgical outcome for severe cubital tunnel syndrome in patients aged >70 years: a mean follow-up of 4.5 years. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2017; 159 (05) 917-923