4.6 Article

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

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 56, 期 1, 页码 108-117

出版社

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

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据