ArticleCureus2026
Comparing the Outcomes Between Minimal Incision Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release and Open Cubital Tunnel Release: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common peripheral nerve entrapment in the upper extremity requiring surgical intervention. While endoscopic decompression techniques have gained popularity due to presumed faster recovery and reduced morbidity, data comparing long-term outcomes remain limited. This study introduces a novel minimal incision endoscopic cubital tunnel release (MICuR) technique and evaluates its efficacy against conventional open cubital tunnel release (OCuTR). In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 30 patients with moderate to severe cubital tunnel syndrome were randomized to undergo either MICuR (n=15) or OCuTR (n=15). Postoperative outcomes were assessed at multiple intervals up to six months and included postoperative pain (Visual Analog Scale (VAS)), functional recovery (modified Bishop score), scar sensitivity (Modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS)), time to return to work, and complications. The results of this study showed that MICuR significantly reduced early postoperative pain compared to OCuTR, with VAS scores of 0.8 vs. 4.7 on postoperative day 1 (p<0.01) and consistently lower pain scores through day 6 (all p<0.01). Time to return to work was markedly shorter in the MICuR group (two days vs. 13 days; p<0.01). Scar sensitivity was also significantly reduced at one, three, and six months (p<0.01). Functional recovery, as measured by the modified Bishop score, was comparable between groups at all timepoints. No significant differences in complication rates were observed. In conclusion, MICuR offers superior short-term outcomes in terms of pain control, scar sensitivity, and return to work, without compromising functional recovery or increasing complications. These findings support MICuR as a promising alternative for patients seeking rapid recovery and improved cosmetic outcomes.
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.