Download PDF
J Hand Microsurg 2019; 11(01): 018-027
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1670928
Original Article
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.

Ulnar Nerve In Situ Decompression versus Transposition for Idiopathic Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Joseph Said
1   Department of Hand and Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Duncan Van Nest
1   Department of Hand and Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Carol Foltz
1   Department of Hand and Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Asif M. Ilyas
1   Department of Hand and Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 08 June 2018

Accepted: 24 July 2018

Publication Date:
27 September 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose Evidence for the superiority of in situ simple decompression (SD) versus ulnar nerve transposition (UNT) for cubital tunnel syndrome remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical improvement, complication rate, and revision rate of SD versus UNT using the available evidence.

Materials and Methods We performed a literature search of relevant publications using PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Springer Link. Inclusion criteria included (1) adult patients >18 years of age, (2) idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome, (3) primary comparison studies including both SD versus UNT with discrete data for each procedure, (4) average follow-up of at least 2 months, and (5) a full English language manuscript available. Odds ratios of improvement, complications, and revision surgery after SD compared with UNT were calculated. Data were analyzed using both fixed and random effects models, and studies were assessed for publication bias and heterogeneity.

Results A total of 1,511 articles from 1970 to 2017 were identified before inclusion, and exclusion criteria were applied. Ultimately 17 studies met the inclusion criteria and included 2,154 procedures. Of these, 1,040 were SD, and 1,114 were UNT procedures. Study heterogeneity was low. Odds ratios of clinical improvement and revision surgery with SD versus UNT were not significantly different. The odds ratio of complications with SD versus UNT was 0.449 (95% confidence interval [CI] of 0.290–0.695) and 0.469 (95% CI of 0.297–0.738) for fixed and random effect models, respectively. The difference in complications between SD versus UNT was significant (P < 0.001).

Conclusion There is no statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes or rate of revision surgery between SD versus UNT. However, there were significantly more complications with UNT. The current body of evidence regarding cubital tunnel syndrome lacks prospective, randomized, controlled trials, uniform reporting of indications, and standardized outcome scoring.

Keywords

cubital tunnel - simple decompression - subcutaneous transposition - submuscular transposition - ulnar nerve
 

  • References

  • 1 Kleinman WB, Bishop AT. Anterior intramuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve. J Hand Surg Am 1989; 14 (06) 972-979
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Mowlavi A, Andrews K, Lille S, Verhulst S, Zook EG, Milner S. The management of cubital tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of clinical studies. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106 (02) 327-334
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Zlowodzki M, Chan S, Bhandari M, Kalliainen L, Schubert W. Anterior transposition compared with simple decompression for treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (12) 2591-2598
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Gelberman RH, Yamaguchi K, Hollstien SB. et al. Changes in interstitial pressure and cross-sectional area of the cubital tunnel and of the ulnar nerve with flexion of the elbow. An experimental study in human cadavera. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80 (04) 492-501
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Macadam SA, Gandhi R, Bezuhly M, Lefaivre KA. Simple decompression versus anterior subcutaneous and submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis. J Hand Surg Am 2008; 33 (08) 1314.e1-1314.e12
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Wilson DH, Krout R. Surgery of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: 16 cases treated by decompression without transposition. Technical note. J Neurosurg 1973; 38 (06) 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151 (04) 264-269
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Yamamoto K, Shishido T, Masaoka T, Katori Y, Tanaka S. Postoperative clinical results in cubital tunnel syndrome. Orthopedics 2006; 29 (04) 347-353
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Geutjens GG, Langstaff RJ, Smith NJ, Jefferson D, Howell CJ, Barton NJ. Medial epicondylectomy or ulnar-nerve transposition for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow?. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78 (05) 777-779
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Seyfettinoğlu F, Karaer A, Sertöz Z, Dülgeroğlu A, Koruyucu MB, Bora OA. [Assessment of the effects of surgical treatment options for cubital tunnel syndrome on the ulnar nerve by USG and EMG] (article in Turkish). Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2012; 23 (02) 88-93
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 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 (01) (02) 44-48
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Davies MA, Vonau M, Blum PW, Kwok BCT, Matheson JM, Stening WA. Results of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow treated by decompression or anterior transposition. Aust N Z J Surg 1991; 61 (12) 929-934
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Bruder M, Dützmann S, Rekkab N, Quick J, Seifert V, Marquardt G. Muscular atrophy in severe cases of cubital tunnel syndrome: prognostic factors and outcome after surgical treatment. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2017; 159 (03) 537-542
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Capo JT, Jacob G, Maurer RJ, Nourbakhsh A, Preston JS. Subcutaneous anterior transposition versus decompression and medial epicondylectomy for the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. Orthopedics 2011; 34 (11) e713-e717
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Hahn SB, Choi YR, Kang HJ, Kang ES. Decompression of the ulnar nerve and minimal medial epicondylectomy with a small incision for cubital tunnel syndrome: comparison with anterior subcutaneous transposition of the nerve. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63 (07) 1150-1155
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Adelaar RS, Foster WC, McDowell C. The treatment of the cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am 1984; 9A (01) 90-95
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Asamoto S, Böker DK, Jödicke A. Surgical treatment for ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2005; 45 (05) 240-244
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 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 (04) Suppl S205-S208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Bartels RHMA, Verhagen WI, van der Wilt GJ, Meulstee J, van Rossum LGM, 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Biggs M, Curtis JA. Randomized, prospective study comparing ulnar neurolysis in situ with submuscular transposition. Neurosurgery 2006; 58 (02) 296-304
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Bimmler D, Meyer VE. Surgical treatment of the ulnar nerve entrapment neuropathy: submuscular anterior transposition or simple decompression of the ulnar nerve?. Long-term results in 79 cases. Ann Chir Main Memb Super 1996; 15 (03) 148-157
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Macnicol MF. The results of operation for ulnar neuritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1979; 61-B (02) 159-164
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Chan RC, Paine KW, Varughese G. Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: comparison of simple decompression and anterior transposition. Neurosurgery 1980; 7 (06) 545-550
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Keiner D, Gaab MR, Schroeder HW, Oertel J. Comparison of the long-term results of anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve or simple decompression in the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome–a prospective study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2009; 151 (04) 311-315
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Mitsionis GI, Manoudis GN, Paschos NK, Korompilias AV, Beris AE. Comparative study of surgical treatment of ulnar nerve compression at the elbow. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19 (04) 513-519
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Paine KWE. Tardy ulnar palsy. Can J Surg 1970; 13 (03) 255-261
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Sousa M, Aido R, Trigueiros M, Lemos R, Silva C. Cubital compressive neuropathy in the elbow: in situ neurolysis versus anterior transposition - comparative study. Rev Bras Ortop 2014; 49 (06) 647-652
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Taha A, Galarza M, Zuccarello M, Taha J. Outcomes of cubital tunnel surgery among patients with absent sensory nerve conduction. Neurosurgery 2004; 54 (04) 891-895
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Caliandro P, La Torre G, Padua R, Giannini F, Padua L. Treatment for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (02) CD006839
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Caliandro P, La Torre G, Padua R, Giannini F, Padua L. Treatment for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 11: CD006839
    Search in Google Scholar