ReviewHand (New York, N.Y.)2016
Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Outcomes of Posterior Oblique Medial Epicondylectomy for the Treatment of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review of Retrospective Evidence on Patient and Surgical Factors in Recurrent Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025Review
- Long term functional outcome for the cubital tunnel syndrome after endoscopic assisted release of the ulnar nerve.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Protocol for Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release (EVOCU): an open randomized controlled trial : EVOCU trial: Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Endoscopic versus open in situ decompression for the management of cubital tunnel syndrome.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2022Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.Orthopedic reviews · 2022Article
- Sonographic Follow-Up of Patients With Cubital Tunnel Syndrome Undergoing in Situ Open Neurolysis or Endoscopic Release: The SPECTRE Study.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Article
- Ulnar Neuropathy at the Elbow: From Ultrasound Scanning to Treatment.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
- Classification and Treatment of Ulnar Nerve Subluxation Following Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2020Article
- Symptom Recurrence After Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2020Article
- Article
- Comparison of Surgical Encounter Direct Costs for Three Methods of Cubital Tunnel Decompression.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral surgical techniques exist for treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. Endoscopic cubital tunnel release (ECTuR) has been recently reported as a promising minimally invasive technique. This study aims to compare outcomes and complications of open cubital tunnel release (OCTuR) and ECTuR in the treatment of idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome.
methodsA systematic review of the literature (1980-2014) identified 118 citations. Studies including adults with idiopathic cubital tunnel treated exclusively by ECTuR or OCTuR were included. Outcomes of interest were postoperative grading, complications, number of reoperations, and the need for intraoperative conversion to another technique. Postoperative outcomes were combined into a uniform scale with 4 categories: "excellent," "good," "fair," and "poor."
resultsTwenty studies met the inclusion criteria (17 observational and 3 comparative), representing 425 open and 556 endoscopic decompressions. In the open group, 79.8% experienced "good" or "excellent" results with 12% complication rate and 2.8% reoperation rate. In the endoscopic group, 81.8% experienced "good" or "excellent" results with 9% complication rate and 1.6% reoperation rate. Meta-analysis of 3 comparative studies demonstrated a significantly lower overall complication rate with ECTuR. Subgroup analysis of complications revealed a significantly higher incidence of scar tenderness and elbow pain with OCTuR.
conclusionsThe current study demonstrates similar effectiveness between the endoscopic (ECTuR) and open (OCTuR) techniques for treatment of idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome with similar outcomes, complication profiles, and reoperation rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.