Cubital tunnel syndrome: comparative results of a multicenter study of 4 surgical techniques with a mean follow-up of 92 months

G Bacle, E Marteau, M Freslon, P Desmoineaux, Y Saint-Cast, R Lancigu, Y Kerjean, E Vernet, J Fournier, P Corcia, D Le Nen, F Rabarin, J Laulan
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery & Research: OTSR 2014, 100 (4 Suppl): S205-8

BACKGROUND: Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most frequent entrapment syndrome. Physiopathology is mixed, and treatment options are multiple, none having yet proved superior efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: The present retrospective multicenter study compared results and rates of complications and recurrence between the 4 main cubital tunnel syndrome treatments, to identify trends and optimize outcome.

MATERIALAND METHODS: Patients presenting with primary clinical cubital tunnel syndrome diagnosed on electroneuromyography were included and operated on using 1 of the following 4 techniques: open or endoscopic in situ decompression, or subcutaneous or submuscular anterior transposition. Four specialized upper-limb surgery centers participated, each systematically performing 1 of the above procedures. Subjective and objective results and rates of complications and recurrence were compared at end of follow-up.

RESULTS: Five hundred and two patients were included and 375 followed up for a mean 92 months (range, 9-144 months); 103 were lost to follow-up and 24 died. Whichever the procedure, more than 90% of patients were cured or showed improvement. There was a single case of scar pain at end of follow-up, managed by endoscopic decompression; there were no other long-term complications. None of the 4 techniques aggravated symptoms. There were 6 recurrences by end of follow-up: 1 associated with open in situ decompression and 5 with submuscular transposition.

CONCLUSION: Surgery was effective in treating cubital tunnel syndrome. Submuscular anterior transposition was associated with recurrence. In contrast to literature reports, subcutaneous anterior transposition, which is a reliable and valid technique, was not associated with a higher complication rate than in situ decompression.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV. Multicenter retrospective.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article


You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.


Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"

We want to hear from doctors like you!

Take a second to answer a survey question.