4.6 Article

Simple decompression versus anterior submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve in severe cubital tunnel syndrome: A prospective randomized study

Journal

NEUROSURGERY
Volume 56, Issue 1, Pages 108-117

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000145854.38234.81

Keywords

cubital tunnel syndrome; elbow; simple decompression; submuscular transposition; ulnar nerve

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: The authors report the results of a clinical series of selected patients with severe cubital tunnel syndrome. The degree of ulnar nerve compression was evaluated by use of a grading system that includes measurements of motor and sensitive function. The submuscular transposition with flexor-pronator mass Z lengthening was compared with simple decompression through a prospective randomized study. METHODS: From February 1998 to June 2003, 70 patients with severe cubital tunnel syndrome were included in this study: 35 patients were submitted to simple decompression (Group A), and 35 patients were treated by anterior deep submuscular transposition (Group B). The preoperative status was determined by use of Dellon's classification. The selected patients had Dellon's Grade 3 (severe syndrome). The mean follow-up period after surgery was 47 months for Group A and 46.94 months for Group B. RESULTS: Postoperative clinical and electrophysiological outcomes were assessed 6 months after surgery in all 70 patients. According to the Bishop scoring system, 19 patients (54.3%) of Group A were clinically graded as excellent, 9 (25.7%) were graded as good, and 7 (20%) were graded as fair; in Group B, 18 patients (51.43%) were graded as excellent, 11 (31.43%) as good, and 6 (117.14%) as fair. Neither severe complications nor recurrences were observed in the two groups. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to the clinical or the electrophysiological outcome. The surgical treatment gains in Group A and B were 80% and 82.86%, respectively (good to excellent results).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available