ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
Protocol for Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release (EVOCU): an open randomized controlled trial : EVOCU trial: Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early symptom aggravation following ulnar nerve transposition for cubital tunnel syndrome: incidence, predictive factors, and threshold-based risk stratification.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Arthroscopic Extra-articular Ulnar Nerve Release in the Setting of Stiff Elbow.Arthroscopy techniques · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common entrapment neuropathy of the upper extremity. Surgical decompression of the ulnar nerve aims to improve complaints and prevent permanent damage to the nerve. Open and endoscopic release of the cubital tunnel are both used in common practice, but none has proven to be superior. This study assesses patient reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs respectively), in addition to objective outcomes of both techniques.
methodsA prospective single-center open randomized non-inferiority trial will take place at the Plastic Surgery Department in the Jeroen Bosch Hospital, the Netherlands. 160 patients with cubital tunnel syndrome will be included. Patients are allocated to endoscopic or open cubital tunnel release by randomization. The surgeon and patients are not blinded for treatment allocation. The follow-up time will take 18 months. DISCUSSION: Currently, the choice for one of the methods is based on surgeon's preferences and degree of familiarity with a particular technique. It is assumed that the open technique is easier, faster and cheaper. The endoscopic release, however, has better exposure of the nerve and reduces the chance of damaging the nerve and might decrease scar discomfort. PROMs and PREMs have proven potential to improve the quality of care. Better health care experiences are associated with better clinical outcome in self-reported post-surgical questionnaires. Combining subjective measures with objective outcomes, efficacy, patient treatment experience and safety profile could help differentiating between open and endoscopic cubital tunnel release. This could aid clinicians in evidence based choices towards the best surgical approach in patients with cubital tunnel syndrome.
trial registrationThis study is registered prospectively with the Dutch Trial Registration under NL9556. Universal Trial Number (WHO-UTN) U1111-1267-3059. Registration date 26-06-2021. The URL: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/9556.
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.