ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
Simple decompression vs. subcutaneous anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve: the 2025 update on the optimal treatment for cubital tunnel syndrome.
Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2026. 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
This 2024 update aims to compare the clinical outcomes, recurrence, and revision rates between simple decompression (SD) and subcutaneous anterior transposition (SAT) of the ulnar nerve for treating cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS). A systematic review of articles from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We selected all English-language comparative studies published from January 2000 to June 2024, comparing SD and SAT concerning postoperative outcomes of surgical treatment for CuTS. Ten articles met the inclusion criteria. We found no statistical difference in the clinical outcomes of SD and SAT. Two studies indicated SD was superior to SAT. Four studies concluded that both techniques were equally effective for CuTS treatment. Three studies were inconclusive, and one study reported
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.