SynthesisHand (New York, N.Y.)2017
Open Versus Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel In Situ Decompression: A Systematic Review of Outcomes and Complications.
Synthesis in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Safety and Outcomes of Different Surgical Techniques for Cubital Tunnel Decompression: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2020Pooled it
- Ultrasound-guided needle knife for releasing Osborne's ligament: an anatomical study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Long term functional outcome for the cubital tunnel syndrome after endoscopic assisted release of the ulnar nerve.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Management of Failed Carpal and Cubital Tunnel Release: An Evidence-Based Guide to Success.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2023Review
- Beyond the Cubital Tunnel: Use of Adjunctive Procedures in the Management of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release in Leprosy Neuritis of the Ulnar Nerve.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2023Article
- Endoscopic versus open in situ decompression for the management of cubital tunnel syndrome.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2022Article
- Percutaneous ultrasound-guided ulnar nerve release technique compared to open technique: A cadaveric study.SICOT-J · 2022Article
- Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: Current Concepts.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2020Review
- Symptom Recurrence After Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2020Article
- Prevalence and Clinical Manifestations of the Anconeus Epitrochlearis and Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic cubital tunnel release has been proposed as an alternative to open in situ release. However, it is difficult to analyze outcomes after endoscopic release, as only a few small case series exist.
methodsThe electronic databases of PubMed (1960-June 2014) were systematically screened for studies related to endoscopic cubital tunnel release or open in situ cubital tunnel release. Baseline characteristics, clinical scores, and complication rates were abstracted. The binary outcome was defined as rate of excellent/good response versus fair/poor. Complications were recorded into 3 categories: wound problems, persistent ulnar nerve symptoms, and other.
resultsWe included 8 articles that reported the clinical outcomes after surgical intervention including a total of 494 patients (344 endoscopic, 150 open in situ). The pooled rate of excellent/good was 92.0% (88.8%-95.2%) for endoscopic and 82.7% (76.15%-89.2%) for open. We identified 18 articles that detailed complications including a total of 1108 patients (691 endoscopic, 417 open). The 4 articles that listed complication rates for both endoscopic and open techniques were analyzed and showed a pooled odds ratio of 0.280 (95% confidence interval, 0.125-0.625), indicating that endoscopic patients have reduced odds of complications.
conclusionsThe results of this systematic review suggest that there is a difference in clinical outcomes between the open in situ and endoscopic cubital tunnel release, with the endoscopic technique being superior in regard to both complication rates along with patient satisfaction.
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.