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
Multicenter Study
. 2021 Jul;16(4):447-452.
doi: 10.1177/1558944719873153. Epub 2019 Sep 13.

Long-term Reoperation Rate for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: Subcutaneous Transposition Versus In Situ Decompression

Douglas T Hutchinson  1 , Ryan Sullivan  1 , Micah K Sinclair  2
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Long-term Reoperation Rate for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: Subcutaneous Transposition Versus In Situ Decompression

Douglas T Hutchinson et al. Hand (N Y). 2021 Jul.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term revision rate of in situ ulnar nerve decompression with anterior subcutaneous transposition surgery for idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter, cohort study compared patients who underwent ulnar nerve surgery with a minimum 5 years of follow-up. The primary outcome studied was the need for revision cubital tunnel surgery. In total, there were 132 cases corresponding to 119 patients. The cohorts were matched for age and comorbidity. Results: The long-term reoperation rate for in situ decompression was 25% compared with 12% for anterior subcutaneous transposition. Seventy-eight percent of revisions of in situ decompression were performed within the first 3 years. Younger age and female sex were identified as independent predictors of need for revision. Conclusions: In the long-term follow-up, in situ decompression is seen to have a statistically significant higher reoperation rate compared with subcutaneous transposition.

Keywords: anatomy; basic science; cubital tunnel syndrome; diagnosis; hand; in situ decompression; long-term; nerve; reoperation; transposition; ulnar nerve.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Kaplan-Meier plot comparing revision rates between surgery types over time. Note. CI = confidence interval; AT = anterior transposition; IS: in situ decompression.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Soltani AM, Best MJ, Francis CS, et al.. Trends in the surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome: an analysis of the national survey of ambulatory surgery database. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38(8):1551-1556. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.04.044. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tomaino MM, Brach PJ, Vansickle DP. The rationale for and efficacy of surgical intervention for electrodiagnostic-negative cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 2001;26(6):1077-1081. doi:10.1053/jhsu.2001.26327. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bartels RHMA, Verhagen WIM, van der Wilt GJ, et al.. Prospective randomized controlled study comparing simple decompression versus anterior subcutaneous transposition for idiopathic neuropathy of the ulnar nerve at the elbow: part I. Neurosurgery. 2005;56:522-530. - PubMed
    1. Goldfarb CA, Sutter MM, Martens EJ, et al.. Incidence of re-operation and subjective outcome following in situ decompression of the ulnar nerve at the cubital tunnel. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2009;34(3):379-383. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Kelm J, et al.. Simple decompression or subcutaneous anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Br. 2005;30:521-524. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources