ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2019
Comparison of Surgical Encounter Direct Costs for Three Methods of Cubital Tunnel Decompression.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Outcomes of Different Surgical Techniques for Cubital Tunnel Decompression: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2020Pooled it
- Evaluation of surgical costs associated with isolated distal fibula fractures.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Direct Economic Burden of Cubital Tunnel Surgery in the United States: Total Payments and Components of Cost.The Journal of hand surgery · 2025Article
- Modern Treatment of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: Evidence and Controversy.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2023Review
- Cost of surgical treatment for ulnar nerve entrapment in Finland, 2011-2015: a registry-based cost description study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Electrodiagnostic Predictors of Outcomes After In Situ Decompression of the Ulnar Nerve.The Journal of hand surgery · 2023Article
- Cost Assessment of Plating Versus Tension Band Wiring Constructs for Treating Mayo Type 2A Olecranon Fractures.The Journal of hand surgery · 2022Article
- Cost Implications of Varying the Surgical Setting and Anesthesia Type for De Quervain Release Surgery.Journal of wrist surgery · 2020Article
- Cost Implications of Varying the Surgical Setting and Anesthesia Type for Trigger Finger Release Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition for cubital tunnel syndrome have historically yielded similar outcomes. The authors' null hypothesis is that no differences exist in surgical encounter total direct costs for in situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition.
methodsAdult patients treated surgically for cubital tunnel syndrome by four fellowship-trained hand surgeons between August of 2011 and December of 2016 were identified by CPT code (64718) at their tertiary academic institution. Patients with prior elbow surgery or fracture/dislocation and those undergoing revision or additional simultaneous procedures were excluded. Using their institution's information technology value tools, the authors extracted prospectively collected surgical encounter total direct costs data for each surgical encounter. Costs were compared between groups and modeled using univariate and multivariable gamma regression.
resultsIn situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition were performed on 45, 62, and 14 unique surgical encounters, respectively, with mean surgical times of 28.0, 46.5, and 50.0 minutes, respectively. Costs differed significantly between surgical methods. Surgical method and provider significantly affected surgical encounter total direct costs in the univariate model. Multivariable modeling demonstrated that subcutaneous transposition was 1.18-fold more costly than in situ decompression and submuscular transposition was 1.55-fold more costly than in situ decompression while controlling for age, sex, and provider.
conclusionsSurgical costs differed significantly between in situ decompression, subcutaneous transposition, and submuscular transposition. Given historically similar outcomes reported for these techniques, cost differences should be considered in addition to clinical factors to inform surgical decision-making for cubital tunnel syndrome patients.
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.