ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2022
Endoscopic versus open in situ decompression for the management of cubital tunnel syndrome.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Nerve compression syndromes of the median and radial nerves at the elbow].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- A Systematic Review of Retrospective Evidence on Patient and Surgical Factors in Recurrent Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025Review
- Peripheral Nerve Syndromes at the Elbow: A Review of Current Treatments.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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the results of endoscopic in situ decompression (EISD) versus open in situ decompression (OISD) in the management of cubital tunnel syndrome (CUTS).
methodsIn this retrospective study, 32 patients who underwent either OISD or EISD for the treatment of CUTS between 2012 and 2019 were identified and divided into one of the two groups: Group I consisted of 13 patients undergoing EISD and group II consisted of 19 patients receiving OISD. Patients were queried regarding the presence of preoperative and postoperative paresthesia. Electromyography (EMG) was performed on all patients preoperatively and at the final control. Preoperative and postoperative pain with palpation were evaluated over the cubital tunnel. The Dellon classification was used for preoperative evaluation of patient symptoms, and the Bishop classification was used for postoperative evaluation. Hand grip strength was measured with a dynamometer. At the preoperative and postoperative final follow-up, the palmar, key, and tip pinches were measured with a pinchmeter. The surgical incision length was measured with a ruler at the end of the operation in all patients. The operation duration was recorded as the time interval between the beginning of the incision and the end of the tourniquet.
resultsThe overall mean age was 43.8 (range; 22 to 66) years. Nine patients were female, and 23 patients were male. No Dellon I patients were present in either group. Overall, 68.75% of the patients were Dellon II and 31.25% were Dellon III. According to the Bishop score, excellent and good results were obtained in 84.6% of the patients in Group I and 73.7% of the patients in Group II. The final follow-up examination found continued paraesthesia in 6 (18.75%) patients. Comparison of the improvement in the postoperative NCV value showed a statistically significantly superior improvement in Group I compared to Group II. The postoperative palmar pinch and tip pinch tests results were statistically significantly better in group I than in group II.
conclusionAlthough EISD had better results clinically, no statistically significant difference was found between the two techniques in terms of Bishop scores and complications. Examination of the electrophysiological results suggested a better outcome in patients who underwent EISD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic Study.
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.