Outcome of Simple Decompression of Primary Cubital Tunnel Syndrome Based on Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements

Published:January 06, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.11.020

      Purpose

      To evaluate the patient-reported outcome measures of patients with primary cubital tunnel syndrome and to assess whether they are affected by preoperative symptom severity.

      Methods

      Patients who underwent simple decompression for primary cubital tunnel syndrome were selected from a prospectively maintained database. Outcome measurements consisted of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire at intake and at 3 and 6 months after surgery. Also, 6 months after surgery, the patients received a question about their satisfaction with the treatment result. To determine a possible influence of preoperative symptom severity on postoperative outcomes, the sample was divided into quartiles based on symptom severity at intake.

      Results

      One hundred and forty-five patients were included in the final analysis. On average, all patients improved on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. The subgroup of patients with the mildest symptoms at intake did not improve significantly on symptom severity but did improve significantly on their functional status. In addition, the patients with the most severe symptoms at intake did improve on both aspects. Moreover, no difference in satisfaction with treatment result between the severity of symptoms at intake was found.

      Conclusions

      The patients with the mildest symptoms at intake may not improve on symptom severity, but they do improve on functional status after simple decompression for cubital tunnel syndrome. In addition, patients with the most severe symptoms at intake do improve on both symptom severity and functional status. Moreover, all patients reported to be equally satisfied with the treatment result, which suggests that satisfaction is not dependent on the symptom severity at intake. Even those patients with both the mildest symptoms before surgery and the least improvement still seem to benefit from simple decompression.

      Type of study/level of evidence

      Therapeutic IV.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Hand Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Osei D.A.
        • Groves A.P.
        • Bommarito K.
        • Ray W.Z.
        Cubital tunnel syndrome: incidence and demographics in a national administrative database.
        Neurosurgery. 2017; 80: 417-420
        • Palmer B.A.
        • Hughes T.B.
        Cubital tunnel syndrome.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2010; 35: 153-163
        • Andrews K.
        • Rowland A.
        • Pranjal A.
        • Ebraheim N.
        Cubital tunnel syndrome: anatomy, clinical presentation, and management.
        J Orthop. 2018; 15: 832-836
        • Staples J.R.
        • Calfee R.
        Cubital tunnel syndrome: current concepts.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017; 25: e215-e224
        • Arle J.E.
        • Zager E.L.
        Surgical treatment of common entrapment neuropathies in the upper limbs.
        Muscle Nerve. 2000; 23: 1160-1174
        • Keiner D.
        • Gaab M.R.
        • Schroeder H.W.
        • Oertel J.
        Comparison of the long-term results of anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve or simple decompression in the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome–a prospective study.
        Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2009; 151 (discussion 316): 311-315
        • Carlton A.
        • Khalid S.I.
        Surgical approaches and their outcomes in the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome.
        Front Surg. 2018; 5: 48
        • Adkinson J.M.
        • Zhong L.
        • Aliu O.
        • Chung K.C.
        Surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome: trends and the influence of patient and surgeon characteristics.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2015; 40: 1824-1831
        • O'Grady E.
        • Power D.
        • Tan S.
        Current attitudes regarding surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome in the UK.
        J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2017; 42: 959-960
        • Wade R.G.
        • Griffiths T.T.
        • Flather R.
        • Burr N.E.
        • Teo M.
        • Bourke G.
        Safety and outcomes of different surgical techniques for cubital tunnel decompression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3: e2024352
        • Nederlandse Vereniging voor Neurologie
        Richtlijn Neuropathie van de Nervus Ulnaris Bij de Elleboog.
        (Accessed November 1, 2011)
        • Burns P.B.
        • Kim H.M.
        • Gaston R.G.
        • et al.
        Predictors of functional outcomes after simple decompression for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: a multicenter study by the SUN study group.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014; 95: 680-685
        • Krogue J.D.
        • Aleem A.W.
        • Osei D.A.
        • Goldfarb C.A.
        • Calfee R.P.
        Predictors of surgical revision after in situ decompression of the ulnar nerve.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015; 24: 634-639
        • Nathan P.A.
        • Keniston R.C.
        • Meadows K.D.
        Outcome study of ulnar nerve compression at the elbow treated with simple decompression and an early programme of physical therapy.
        J Hand Surg Br. 1995; 20: 628-637
        • Kong L.
        • Bai J.
        • Yu K.
        • Zhang B.
        • Zhang J.
        • Tian D.
        Predictors of surgical outcomes after in situ ulnar nerve decompression for cubital tunnel syndrome.
        Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018; 14: 69-74
        • Watts A.C.
        • Bain G.I.
        Patient-rated outcome of ulnar nerve decompression: a comparison of endoscopic and open in situ decompression.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2009; 34: 1492-1498
        • Suzuki T.
        • Iwamoto T.
        • Shizu K.
        • Suzuki K.
        • Yamada H.
        • Sato K.
        Predictors of postoperative outcomes of cubital tunnel syndrome treatments using multiple logistic regression analysis.
        J Orthop Sci. 2017; 22: 453-456
        • Selles R.W.
        • Wouters R.M.
        • Poelstra R.
        • et al.
        Routine health outcome measurement: development, design, and implementation of the hand and wrist cohort.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020; 146: 343-354
        • Wouters R.M.
        • Jobi-Odeneye A.O.
        • de la Torre A.
        • Joseph A.
        ICHOM Hand and Wrist Working Group, Hovius SER. A standard set for outcome measurement in patients with hand and wrist conditions: consensus by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Hand and Wrist Working Group.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2021; 46: 841-855.e7
        • Bimmler D.
        • Meyer V.E.
        Surgical treatment of the ulnar nerve entrapment neuropathy: submuscular anterior transposition or simple decompression of the ulnar nerve? Long-term results in 79 cases.
        Ann Chir Main Memb Super. 1996; 15: 148-157
        • Levine D.W.
        • Simmons B.P.
        • Koris M.J.
        • et al.
        A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993; 75: 1585-1592
        • Katz J.N.
        • Gelberman R.H.
        • Wright E.A.
        • Lew R.A.
        • Liang M.H.
        Responsiveness of self-reported and objective measures of disease severity in carpal tunnel syndrome.
        Med Care. 1994; 32: 1127-1133
        • Atroshi I.
        • Breidenbach W.C.
        • McCabe S.J.
        Assessment of the carpal tunnel outcome instrument in patients with nerve-compression symptoms.
        J Hand Surg Am. 1997; 22: 222-227
        • Zimmerman N.B.
        • Kaye M.B.
        • Wilgis E.F.
        • Zimmerman R.M.
        • Dubin N.H.
        Are standardized patient self-reporting instruments applicable to the evaluation of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow?.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18: 463-468
        • Song J.W.
        • Waljee J.F.
        • Burns P.B.
        • et al.
        An outcome study for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: a multicenter study by the surgery for ulnar nerve (SUN) study group.
        Neurosurgery. 2013; 72 (discussion 981–972; quiz 982): 971-981
        • De Ridder W.A.
        • van Kooij Y.E.
        • Vermeulen G.M.
        • et al.
        Test-retest reliability and construct validity of the satisfaction with treatment result questionnaire in patients with hand and wrist conditions: a prospective study.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021; 479: 2022-2032
        • Malay S.
        SUN Study Group, Chung KC. The minimal clinically important difference after simple decompression for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2013; 38: 652-659
        • Koziej M.
        • Trybus M.
        • Banach M.
        • et al.
        Comparison of patient-reported outcome measurements and objective measurements after cubital tunnel decompression.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018; 141: 1171-1181
        • Bartels R.H.
        • Menovsky T.
        • Van Overbeeke J.J.
        • Verhagen W.I.
        Surgical management of ulnar nerve compression at the elbow: an analysis of the literature.
        J Neurosurg. 1998; 89: 722-727
        • Bartels R.H.
        • Verhagen W.I.
        • van der Wilt G.J.
        • Meulstee J.
        • van Rossum L.G.
        • Grotenhuis J.A.
        Prospective randomized controlled study comparing simple decompression versus anterior subcutaneous transposition for idiopathic neuropathy of the ulnar nerve at the elbow: part 1.
        Neurosurgery. 2005; 56 (discussion 522–530): 522-530
        • Giladi A.M.
        • Gaston R.G.
        • Haase S.C.
        • et al.
        Trend of recovery after simple decompression for treatment of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013; 131: 563e-573e
        • Tong J.
        • Dong Z.
        • Xu B.
        • Zhang C.
        • Gu Y.
        Predictors of surgical outcomes for severe cubital tunnel syndrome: a review of 146 patients.
        Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018; 160: 645-650
        • Kaempffe F.A.
        • Farbach J.
        A modified surgical procedure for cubital tunnel syndrome: partial medial epicondylectomy.
        J Hand Surg Am. 1998; 23: 492-499
        • 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: 327-334
        • Sun P.O.
        • Selles R.W.
        • Jansen M.C.
        • Slijper H.P.
        • Ulrich D.J.O.
        • Walbeehm E.T.
        Recurrent and persistent carpal tunnel syndrome: predicting clinical outcome of revision surgery.
        J Neurosurg. 2019; 132: 847-855
        • Kang H.J.
        • Oh W.T.
        • Koh I.H.
        • Kim S.
        • Choi Y.R.
        Factors influencing outcomes after ulnar nerve stability-based surgery for cubital tunnel syndrome: a prospective cohort study.
        Yonsei Med J. 2016; 57: 455-460
        • Graham B.
        Defining and measuring patient satisfaction.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2016; 41: 929-931
        • Ring D.
        • Leopold S.S.
        Editorial-measuring satisfaction: can it be done?.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473: 3071-3073
        • Sun P.O.
        • Walbeehm E.T.
        • Selles R.W.
        • et al.
        Influence of illness perceptions, psychological distress and pain catastrophizing on self-reported symptom severity and functional status in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome.
        J Psychosom Res. 2019; 126: 109820
        • Zhang D.
        • Earp B.E.
        • Blazar P.
        Rates of complications and secondary surgeries after in situ cubital tunnel release compared with ulnar nerve transposition: a retrospective review.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2017; 42: 294.e1-294.e5
        • Aldekhayel S.
        • Govshievich A.
        • Lee J.
        • Tahiri Y.
        • Luc M.
        Endoscopic versus open cubital tunnel release: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Hand (N Y). 2016; 11: 36-44
        • MacDermid J.C.
        • Grewal R.
        Development and validation of the patient-rated ulnar nerve evaluation.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013; 14: 146
        • Ebersole G.C.
        • Davidge K.
        • Damiano M.
        • Mackinnon S.E.
        Validity and responsiveness of the DASH questionnaire as an outcome measure following ulnar nerve transposition for cubital tunnel syndrome.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013; 132: 81e-90e
        • An T.W.
        • Evanoff B.A.
        • Boyer M.I.
        • Osei D.A.
        • The prevalence of cubital tunnel syndrome: a cross-sectional study in a U.S. metropolitan cohort
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017; 99: 408-416
        • Buchanan P.J.
        • Chieng L.O.
        • Hubbard Z.S.
        • Law T.Y.
        • Chim H.
        Endoscopic versus open in situ cubital tunnel release: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of 655 patients.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018; 141: 679-684
        • Cohen J.
        Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ1988

      Linked Article