Prospective randomized controlled study comparing simple decompression versus anterior subcutaneous transposition for idiopathic neuropathy of the ulnar nerve at the elbow: Part 1. Randomized, prospective study comparing ulnar neurolysis in situ with submuscular transposition. Simple decompression versus anterior submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve in severe cubital tunnel syndrome: a prospective randomized study. Conservative treatment of the cubital tunnel syndrome. Medial epicondylectomy or ulnar-nerve transposition for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow?
The main objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of participants treated by simple decompression (SD) of the ulnar nerve versus anterior subcutaneous transposition (AST).
                A prospective randomized controlled study was performed. Three hundred forty participants were referred to our institution between March 1999 and July 2002. One hundred fifty-two patients met the inclusion criteria and were randomized into two surgical groups: 75 were assigned to SD, and 77 were assigned to AST. Participants were followed for 1 year after surgery. The main outcome measure was clinical outcome 1 year after surgery.
                An excellent or good result was obtained in 49 of 75 participants who underwent SD and in 54 of 77 participants undergoing AST. The difference was not statistically significant. However, the complication rate was statistically lower in the SD group (9.6%) compared with the AST group (31.1%) (risk ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.69). Duration of symptoms, (sub)luxation of the ulnar nerve, and severity of the complaints did not influence outcome.
                Surgery for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow is effective. The outcomes of SD and AST are equivalent, except for the complication rate. Because the intervention is simpler and associated with fewer complications, SD is advised, even in the presence of (sub)luxation. To help clarify the optimal surgical strategy for idiopathic, symptomatic ulnar nerve compression at the elbow in terms of overall outcome and morbidity by using objective criteria.
                Forty-four surgical candidates were recruited prospectively and were randomized into the neurolysis (n = 23) or transposition (n = 21) arm of the study. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were assessed symptomatically and by performance on McGowen and Louisiana State University Medical Center grading systems at 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year.
                Both procedures were equally effective in producing objective neurological improvement (61% in the neurolysis group, 67% in the transposition group). Wound complications, however, were more significant in the transposition group. Three of 21 in the transposition group compared with 0 of 23 in the neurolysis group experienced a deep wound infection.
                Idiopathic symptomatic ulnar nerve compression at the elbow is adequately treated by both neurolysis in situ and submuscular transposition. Submuscular transposition was associated with a higher incidence of complications. The authors therefore suggest the simpler procedure of neurolysis in situ as the treatment of choice. Submuscular transposition remains appropriate in certain circumstances. The authors report the results of a clinical series of selected patients with severe cubital tunnel syndrome. The degree of ulnar nerve compression was evaluated by use of a grading system that includes measurements of motor and sensitive function. The submuscular transposition with flexor-pronator mass Z lengthening was compared with simple decompression through a prospective randomized study.
                From February 1998 to June 2003, 70 patients with severe cubital tunnel syndrome were included in this study: 35 patients were submitted to simple decompression (Group A), and 35 patients were treated by anterior deep submuscular transposition (Group B). The preoperative status was determined by use of Dellon's classification. The selected patients had Dellon's Grade 3 (severe syndrome). The mean follow-up period after surgery was 47 months for Group A and 46.94 months for Group B.
                Postoperative clinical and electrophysiological outcomes were assessed 6 months after surgery in all 70 patients. According to the Bishop scoring system, 19 patients (54.3%) of Group A were clinically graded as excellent, 9 (25.7%) were graded as good, and 7 (20%) were graded as fair; in Group B, 18 patients (51.43%) were graded as excellent, 11 (31.43%) as good, and 6 (17.14%) as fair. Neither severe complications nor recurrences were observed in the two groups.
                No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to the clinical or the electrophysiological outcome. The surgical treatment gains in Group A and B were 80% and 82.86%, respectively (good to excellent results). Conservative treatment of the cubital tunnel syndrome was evaluated in a randomised study of 70 patients with mild or moderate symptoms (Dellon, 1989). All patients were informed about the cause of symptoms and allocated to three groups: night splinting, nerve gliding and control. Evaluation consisted of Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, visual analogue pain scales, strength measurements and neurophysiological examination, before treatment and after six months. Fifty-seven patients were followed for six months. Fifty-one (89.5%) were improved at the follow-up. There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the recorded variables. Night splints and nerve gliding exercises did not add favourably. Routine neurophysiological examination seems unnecessary since 76% of the patients with typical symptoms had normal findings and 75% with pathological findings improved. Patients with mild or moderate symptoms have a good prognosis if they are informed of the causes of the condition and how to avoid provocation. We carried out a prospective randomised study comparing medial epicondylectomy with anterior transposition for the treatment of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. The mean follow-up period was 4.5 years and we assessed the patients neurologically and orthopaedically. Neither procedure appeared to have a significant effect on elbow function. Our study showed better results after medial epicondylectomy; in particular patient satisfaction was higher than after ulnar nerve transposition. There were no significant differences in motor power or nerve-conduction rates and sensory fibres appeared to be more vulnerable to devascularisation.
The available evidence is not sufficient to identify the best treatment for idiopathic ulnar neuropathy at the elbow on the basis of clinical, neurophysiological and imaging characteristics. We do not know when to treat a patient conservatively or surgically. However, the results of our meta-analysis suggest that simple decompression and decompression with transposition are equally effective in idiopathic ulnar neuropathy at the elbow, including when the nerve impairment is severe. In mild cases, evidence from one small RCT of conservative treatment showed that information on movements or positions to avoid may reduce subjective discomfort.