ReviewCureus2024
Higher Revision Rates With In Situ Decompression as Compared to Ulnar Nerve Transposition for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: A Meta-Regression Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- From deficit to recovery: postoperative neurological improvements in patients with severe cubital tunnel syndrome.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Peripheral Nerve Syndromes at the Elbow: A Review of Current Treatments.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of follow-up time on revision rates of in situ decompression and ulnar nerve transposition for the surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify prospective and retrospective primary comparison studies assessing the revision rates of in situ decompression and ulnar nerve transposition for the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. Meta-regression analyses were used to assess the effect of average study follow-up on the revision rates of both cubital tunnel syndrome treatments. Modeling results were then used to estimate revision rates between decompression and transposition at increasing follow-up times. Sixteen studies including 2,225 patients were included. Average study follow-up time was a statistically significant moderator of revision rates. Model predictions show that in situ decompression operations had an increased risk for revision as compared to ulnar transposition after 48 months of follow-up. In studies with follow-up time ≥48 months, revision rates for in situ decompression (11.9%) were significantly greater than in ulnar transposition (3.2%). In situ decompression for cubital tunnel syndrome is associated with an increased risk of revision surgery as compared to ulnar nerve transposition, particularly when assessed at longer follow-up intervals. The effect of follow-up duration on revision rates demonstrates the need for additional studies to compare outcomes of these operative approaches at follow-up times ≥48 months. This study provides evidence that ulnar nerve transposition may ultimately lead to lower revision rates and demonstrates the need for prospective, randomized trials to corroborate this effect.
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.