ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2025
Efficacy of Submuscular Transposition for Revision Cubital Tunnel Release: Comparative Outcomes Analysis.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess outcomes after revision cubital tunnel release and submuscular transposition and compare these to a cohort of patients undergoing primary release with in situ decompression. Methods: Patients who underwent revision cubital tunnel release and submuscular transposition (n = 16) were enrolled. Mean follow-up was 21.4 months (range 12.8-55.6). Patients were evaluated in person using the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). Dellon stage, McGowan grade, visual analog scale for pain, and improvement of symptoms using the Messina's criteria and Modified Bishop score were assessed. Comparative analysis was performed with a cohort of primary patients who underwent in situ decompression (n = 18), with a mean follow-up of 26.6 months (range 13.3-63.3). Results: In revision patients, postoperative improvement in Dellon stage was seen in 13 (81.3%) and McGowan grade in 12 (75.0%). Messina's criteria showed inferior but still satisfactory outcomes in the revision compared to primary cohort. Median MHQ was 57.1 (48.8-79.4) in the revision cohort and 76.3 (71.6-93.7) in the primary cohort. Median DASH was 26.3 (16.1-45.3) in the revision cohort and 11.7 (5.6-14.2) in the primary cohort. Differences between MHQ and DASH in both cohorts were statistically significant ( Conclusions: The majority of patients undergoing revision cubital tunnel release and submuscular transposition have relief of symptoms. However, improvement is incomplete and inferior compared to patients undergoing primary release. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic III.
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.