Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Apr;11(1):18-27.
doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1670928. Epub 2018 Sep 27.

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

Joseph Said  1 , Duncan Van Nest  1 , Carol Foltz  1 , Asif M Ilyas  1
Affiliations

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

Joseph Said et al. J Hand Microsurg. 2019 Apr.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest None.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of literature review including the number of studies identified at each stage.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot of improvement of SD versus UNT. SD, simple decompression; UNT, ulnar nerve transposition.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Funnel plot of improvement of simple decompression versus ulnar nerve transposition.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot of complications of simple decompression versus ulnar nerve transposition.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Funnel plot of complications of simple decompression versus ulnar nerve transposition.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest plot of revision surgery of simple decompression versus ulnar nerve transposition.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Funnel plot of revision surgery of simple decompression versus ulnar nerve transposition.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kleinman W B, Bishop A T. Anterior intramuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve. J Hand Surg Am. 1989;14(06):972–979. - PubMed
    1. Mowlavi A, Andrews K, Lille S, Verhulst S, Zook E G, Milner S. The management of cubital tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of clinical studies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106(02):327–334. - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed
    1. Gelberman R H, Yamaguchi K, Hollstien S B 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. - PubMed
    1. Macadam S A, Gandhi R, Bezuhly M, Lefaivre K A. 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):13140–1.314E15. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources