Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR · 2014
Cubital tunnel syndrome: comparative results of a multicenter study of 4 surgical techniques with a mean follow-up of 92 months.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bacle G, Marteau E, Freslon M, Desmoineaux P, Saint-Cast Y, Lancigu R, Kerjean Y, Vernet E, Fournier J, Corcia P, Le Nen D, Rabarin F, Laulan J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most frequent entrapment syndrome. Physiopathology is mixed, and treatment options are multiple, none having yet proved superior efficacy.
OBJECTIVES: The present retrospective multicenter study compared results and rates of complications and recurrence between the 4 main cubital tunnel syndrome treatments, to identify trends and optimize outcome.
MATERIALAND METHODS: Patients presenting with primary clinical cubital tunnel syndrome diagnosed on electroneuromyography were included and operated on using 1 of the following 4 techniques: open or endoscopic in situ decompression, or subcutaneous or submuscular anterior transposition. Four specialized upper-limb surgery centers participated, each systematically performing 1 of the above procedures. Subjective and objective results and rates of complications and recurrence were compared at end of follow-up.
RESULTS: Five hundred and two patients were included and 375 followed up for a mean 92 months (range, 9-144 months); 103 were lost to follow-up and 24 died. Whichever the procedure, more than 90% of patients were cured or showed improvement. There was a single case of scar pain at end of follow-up, managed by endoscopic decompression; there were no other long-term complications. None of the 4 techniques aggravated symptoms. There were 6 recurrences by end of follow-up: 1 associated with open in situ decompression and 5 with submuscular transposition.
CONCLUSION: Surgery was effective in treating cubital tunnel syndrome. Submuscular anterior transposition was associated with recurrence. In contrast to literature reports, subcutaneous anterior transposition, which is a reliable and valid technique, was not associated with a higher complication rate than in situ decompression.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV. Multicenter retrospective.
OBJECTIVES: The present retrospective multicenter study compared results and rates of complications and recurrence between the 4 main cubital tunnel syndrome treatments, to identify trends and optimize outcome.
MATERIALAND METHODS: Patients presenting with primary clinical cubital tunnel syndrome diagnosed on electroneuromyography were included and operated on using 1 of the following 4 techniques: open or endoscopic in situ decompression, or subcutaneous or submuscular anterior transposition. Four specialized upper-limb surgery centers participated, each systematically performing 1 of the above procedures. Subjective and objective results and rates of complications and recurrence were compared at end of follow-up.
RESULTS: Five hundred and two patients were included and 375 followed up for a mean 92 months (range, 9-144 months); 103 were lost to follow-up and 24 died. Whichever the procedure, more than 90% of patients were cured or showed improvement. There was a single case of scar pain at end of follow-up, managed by endoscopic decompression; there were no other long-term complications. None of the 4 techniques aggravated symptoms. There were 6 recurrences by end of follow-up: 1 associated with open in situ decompression and 5 with submuscular transposition.
CONCLUSION: Surgery was effective in treating cubital tunnel syndrome. Submuscular anterior transposition was associated with recurrence. In contrast to literature reports, subcutaneous anterior transposition, which is a reliable and valid technique, was not associated with a higher complication rate than in situ decompression.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV. Multicenter retrospective.