Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 1331–1337 | Cite as

Functional outcome after endoscopic assisted release of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome: mid-to-long term results

  • Christian K. Spies
  • Melanie Schäfer
  • Martin F. Langer
  • Thomas Bruckner
  • Lars P. Müller
  • Frank Unglaub
Original Paper
  • 167 Downloads

Abstract

Aim of the study

The aim of the study was to investigate functional and patient-rated outcome parameters after endoscopic assisted release of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome.

Methods

One hundred of 204 consecutive patients between 2006 and 2011 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Fifty-one of these patients were recruited and evaluated clinically and by questionnaire testing retrospectively after a mean follow-up of 82 months (range: 60–116).

Results

Neurological parameters (two-point-discrimination, application of Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments, Tinel’s test), grip, and three-point pinch strength were not significantly different from the contralateral extremity at the time of examination, whereas key pinch strength was significantly weaker. Mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 20.82. Patients’ overall opinion was good/excellent for 78% of the study population.

Discussion

The examined surgical procedure proved to be as efficacious as open in-situ decompression regarding functional outcome with fewer post-operative complications. Regarding the results it might be postulated that grip strength and three-point pinch strength determination is not necessarily relevant for ulnar nerve evaluation.

Conclusion

Endoscopic assisted release of the ulnar nerve is a reliable and safe treatment option for cubital tunnel syndrome with satisfactory mid-to-long term functional and patient-rated outcomes.

Keywords

Cubital tunnel syndrome Dash Endoscopic assisted release Nerve entrapment Ulnar nerve 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Spies CK, Unglaub F received honoraria from Richard Wolf GmbH Knittlingen, Germany, for work shops not related to this study. Schäfer M, Bruckner T, Langer M, Müller LP have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional ethics committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration.

References

  1. 1.
    Feindel W, Stratford J (1958) The role of the cubital tunnel in tardy ulnar palsy. Can J Surg 1:287–300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Palmer BA, Hughes TB (2010) Cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg 35:153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waugh RP, Zlotolow DA (2007) In situ decompression of the ulnar nerve at the cubital tunnel. Hand Clin 23:319–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    al-Qattan MM, Murray KA (1991) The arcade of Struthers: an anatomical study. J Hand Surg Eur 16:311–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    von Schroeder HP, Scheker LR (2003) Redefining the "arcade of Struthers". J Hand Surg 28:1018–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Polatsch DB, Melone CP, Beldner S, Incorvaia A (2007) Ulnar nerve anatomy. Hand Clin 23:283–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mirza A, Mirza JB, Lee BK, Adhya S, Litwa J, Lorenzana DJ (2014) An anatomical basis for endoscopic cubital tunnel release and associated clinical outcomes. J Hand Surg 39:1363–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsai TM, Chen IC, Majd ME, Lim BH (1999) Cubital tunnel release with endoscopic assistance: results of a new technique. J Hand Surg 24:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siemionow M, Agaoglu G, Hoffmann R (2007) Anatomic characteristics of a fascia and its bands overlying the ulnar nerve in the proximal forearm: a cadaver study. J Hand Surg Eur 2:302–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boone S, Gelberman RH, Calfee RP (2015) The management of cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg 40:1897–1904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Watts AC, Bain GI (2009) Patient-rated outcome of ulnar nerve decompression: a comparison of endoscopic and open in situ decompression. J Hand Surg 34:1492–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flores LP (2010) Endoscopically assisted release of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. Acta Neurochir 152:619–625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoffmann R, Siemionow M (2006) The endoscopic management of cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Eur 31:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fees EE (1992) Clinical assessment recommendations. In: Casanova JS (ed) Grip strength. American Society of Hand Therapists, Chicago, pp 41–45Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levin S, Pearsall G, Ruderman RJ (1978) Von Frey’s method of measuring pressure sensibility in the hand: an engineering analysis of the Weinstein-Semmes pressure aesthesiometer. J Hand Surg 3:211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bell-Krotoski J, Tomancik E (1987) The repeatability of testing with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. J Hand Surg 12:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C (1996) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand). Am J Ind Med 29:602–608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Germann G, Wind G, Harth A (1999) The DASH (disability of arm-shoulder-hand) questionnaire - a new instrument for evaluating upper extremity treatment outcome. Handchir Mikrochir Plast 31:149–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mirza A, Reinhart MK, Bove J, Litwa J (2011) Scope-assisted release of the cubital tunnel. J Hand Surg 36:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hagert E, Hagert CG (2014) Upper extremity nerve entrapments. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:71–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zajonc H, Momeni A (2014) Endoscopic release of the cubital tunnel. Hand Clin 30:55–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dellon AL, MacKinnon SE (1985) Injury to the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve during cubital tunnel surgery. J Hand Surg 10:33–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bain GI, Bajhau A (2005) Endoscopic release of the ulnar nerve at the elbow using the Agee device: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy 21:691–695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mariani PP, Golano P, Adriani E, Llusa M, Camilleri G (1999) A cadaveric study of endoscopic decompression of the cubital tunnel. Arthroscopy 15:218–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bacle G, Marteau E, Freslon M et al (2014) 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 100:S205–S208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian K. Spies
    • 1
  • Melanie Schäfer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Martin F. Langer
    • 3
  • Thomas Bruckner
    • 4
  • Lars P. Müller
    • 5
  • Frank Unglaub
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Hand SurgeryVulpius KlinikBad RappenauGermany
  2. 2.Medical Faculty Mannheim of the Ruprecht-Karls University HeidelbergMannheimGermany
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyUniversity Hospital MünsterMünsterGermany
  4. 4.The Department of Medical Biometry and InformaticsRuprecht-Karls UniversityHeidelbergGermany
  5. 5.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyUniversity Hospital CologneKölnGermany

Personalised recommendations