ReviewThe archives of bone and joint surgery2025
A Systematic Review of Retrospective Evidence on Patient and Surgical Factors in Recurrent Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.
Review in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Psychometric Validation of the Persian Version of the Patient-Rated Ulnar Nerve Evaluation (PRUNE).The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2026Article
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
Objectives: There is much debate regarding which patient-related risk factors and surgical techniques contribute to recurrent cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS). This systematic review aimed to identify preoperative risk factors and surgical techniques associated with symptom recurrence or revision surgery following cubital tunnel release. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov databases for potentially eligible articles published between January 2009 and November 2024. Using Covidence, four reviewers screened based on predefined inclusion criteria: studies examining recurrent CuTS following surgery, reporting patient characteristics and/or surgical techniques, and published in English. A standardized Excel sheet was utilized to extract patient demographics, recurrence rates, and revision outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Due to heterogeneity in outcomes, no formal metaanalysis was performed, and a narrative synthesis was done. Results: Fourteen studies were included, totaling 49,492 patients with idiopathic CuTS treated with ulnar nerve surgery. Revision rates ranged 1.2-23.8%. Younger age was described as a risk factor in ten studies, although one study identified older age as a predictive risk factor. In contrast, another study described it as a protective factor. Diabetes was associated with recurrence risk in two studies, while sex, BMI, and smoking showed inconsistent associations. Severe preoperative symptoms or higher McGowan scores were associated with poorer outcomes in two studies. Overall, recurrence and revision rates were low across all techniques. Conclusion: The retrospective nature and limited power of included studies increase risk of selection and Type II errors. Regardless, there seems to be no significant difference in recurrence/revision rates based on surgical techniques. CuTR was often recommended as an initial procedure while ulnar nerve transposition (UNT) was reserved for revisions or patients with nerve subluxation.
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.