ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2025
Cubital Tunnel Revision After Transposition: A Single Center Experience.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the rates of revision after cubital tunnel release with transposition among three different transposition techniques in a single institution. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all cubital tunnel surgeries over a 5-year period was performed via a query of the billing records of three different surgeons who typically perform three different types of transposition. This yielded 937 records. After eliminating records with incomplete clinical information (141 records), a total of 796 records were evaluated, with 540 representing in situ releases and 255 transpositions. The transposition cohort was further evaluated, and 39 records were eliminated as the operation was performed for traumatic or post-traumatic indications, leaving 216 transpositions performed between December 1, 2016, and December 1, 2021. Results: In the 216 cubital tunnel releases with transposition performed, 82 (38%) were subcutaneous transpositions, 71 (33%) were subfascial transpositions, and 63 (29%) were submuscular transpositions. Twenty of the 216 cubital tunnel releases with transpositions that were performed in this study period represented revision surgeries. Eleven were revisions after an in situ release, and eight were revisions after a transposition. One is unknown as the index operation was performed by an outside physician whose operative note was not available. Of the revision surgeries performed, 10 represented revisions of index cases performed by our institution with six being revisions for an in situ release and four revisions after a transposition. Of those four revisions after a transposition, one was performed for a subcutaneous transposition, two were following subfascial transpositions, and one was following a submuscular transposition. The average time from index operation to revision after a transposition was 16.3 months. Conclusions: The rate of revision surgery following cubital tunnel release with transposition is quite low, and there do not appear to be major differences in the rate of revision among the different types of surgical transposition, indicating that a true subcutaneous transposition may be adequate. 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.