Endoscopic versus Open In Situ Cubital Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of 655 Patients

Patrick J. Buchanan, Lee O. Chieng, Zachary S. Hubbard, Tsun Y. Law, Harvey Chim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common peripheral entrapment syndrome. To date, there is no true consensus on the ideal surgical management. A minimally invasive, endoscopic approach has gained popularity but has not been adequately compared to the more traditional, open approach. Methods: With compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review was performed to identify studies published between 1990 and 2016 that compared the efficacy of endoscopic cubital tunnel release to open cubital tunnel release. A meta-analysis was then performed through a random-effects model with inverse variance weighting to calculate I2 values for heterogeneity analysis. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group. Results: Five studies involving 655 patients (endoscopic cubital tunnel release, n = 226; open cubital tunnel release, n = 429) were included. Meta-analysis revealed no significant superiority of open release in achieving an “excellent” or “good” Bishop score (OR, 1.27; 95 percent CI, 0.59 to 2.75; p = 0.54) and reduction in visual analogue scale score (mean difference, −0.41; 95 percent CI, −1.49 to 0.67; p = 0.46). However, in the endoscopic release cohort, lower rates of new-onset scar tenderness/elbow pain were found (OR, 0.19; 95 percent CI, 0.07 to 0.53; p = 0.002), but there was a higher incidence of postoperative hematomas (OR, 5.70; 95 percent CI, 1.20 to 27.03; p = 0.03). The reoperation rate in the endoscopic and open release groups was 4.9 and 4.1 percent, respectively (p = 0.90). Conclusions: The authors demonstrated equivalent overall clinical improvement between endoscopic and open cubital tunnel release in terms of Bishop score and visual analogue scale score reduction. Because of the low power of most studies, further investigations with a larger patient population and longer follow-up are needed to better characterize the role of endoscopic cubital tunnel release.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)679-684
Number of pages6
JournalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Mar 1 2018

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Visual Analog Scale
Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Elbow
Reoperation
Hematoma
Cicatrix
Consensus
Guidelines
Pain
Incidence
Population
Forests

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Endoscopic versus Open In Situ Cubital Tunnel Release : A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of 655 Patients. / Buchanan, Patrick J.; Chieng, Lee O.; Hubbard, Zachary S.; Law, Tsun Y.; Chim, Harvey.

In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 01.03.2018, p. 679-684.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Buchanan, Patrick J. ; Chieng, Lee O. ; Hubbard, Zachary S. ; Law, Tsun Y. ; Chim, Harvey. / Endoscopic versus Open In Situ Cubital Tunnel Release : A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of 655 Patients. In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2018 ; pp. 679-684.
@article{56726571673c409e8a9d2a28e09ffeec,
title = "Endoscopic versus Open In Situ Cubital Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of 655 Patients",
abstract = "Background: Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common peripheral entrapment syndrome. To date, there is no true consensus on the ideal surgical management. A minimally invasive, endoscopic approach has gained popularity but has not been adequately compared to the more traditional, open approach. Methods: With compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review was performed to identify studies published between 1990 and 2016 that compared the efficacy of endoscopic cubital tunnel release to open cubital tunnel release. A meta-analysis was then performed through a random-effects model with inverse variance weighting to calculate I2 values for heterogeneity analysis. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group. Results: Five studies involving 655 patients (endoscopic cubital tunnel release, n = 226; open cubital tunnel release, n = 429) were included. Meta-analysis revealed no significant superiority of open release in achieving an “excellent” or “good” Bishop score (OR, 1.27; 95 percent CI, 0.59 to 2.75; p = 0.54) and reduction in visual analogue scale score (mean difference, −0.41; 95 percent CI, −1.49 to 0.67; p = 0.46). However, in the endoscopic release cohort, lower rates of new-onset scar tenderness/elbow pain were found (OR, 0.19; 95 percent CI, 0.07 to 0.53; p = 0.002), but there was a higher incidence of postoperative hematomas (OR, 5.70; 95 percent CI, 1.20 to 27.03; p = 0.03). The reoperation rate in the endoscopic and open release groups was 4.9 and 4.1 percent, respectively (p = 0.90). Conclusions: The authors demonstrated equivalent overall clinical improvement between endoscopic and open cubital tunnel release in terms of Bishop score and visual analogue scale score reduction. Because of the low power of most studies, further investigations with a larger patient population and longer follow-up are needed to better characterize the role of endoscopic cubital tunnel release.",
author = "Buchanan, {Patrick J.} and Chieng, {Lee O.} and Hubbard, {Zachary S.} and Law, {Tsun Y.} and Harvey Chim",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/PRS.0000000000004112",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "679--684",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0032-1052",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endoscopic versus Open In Situ Cubital Tunnel Release

T2 - A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of 655 Patients

AU - Buchanan, Patrick J.

AU - Chieng, Lee O.

AU - Hubbard, Zachary S.

AU - Law, Tsun Y.

AU - Chim, Harvey

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - Background: Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common peripheral entrapment syndrome. To date, there is no true consensus on the ideal surgical management. A minimally invasive, endoscopic approach has gained popularity but has not been adequately compared to the more traditional, open approach. Methods: With compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review was performed to identify studies published between 1990 and 2016 that compared the efficacy of endoscopic cubital tunnel release to open cubital tunnel release. A meta-analysis was then performed through a random-effects model with inverse variance weighting to calculate I2 values for heterogeneity analysis. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group. Results: Five studies involving 655 patients (endoscopic cubital tunnel release, n = 226; open cubital tunnel release, n = 429) were included. Meta-analysis revealed no significant superiority of open release in achieving an “excellent” or “good” Bishop score (OR, 1.27; 95 percent CI, 0.59 to 2.75; p = 0.54) and reduction in visual analogue scale score (mean difference, −0.41; 95 percent CI, −1.49 to 0.67; p = 0.46). However, in the endoscopic release cohort, lower rates of new-onset scar tenderness/elbow pain were found (OR, 0.19; 95 percent CI, 0.07 to 0.53; p = 0.002), but there was a higher incidence of postoperative hematomas (OR, 5.70; 95 percent CI, 1.20 to 27.03; p = 0.03). The reoperation rate in the endoscopic and open release groups was 4.9 and 4.1 percent, respectively (p = 0.90). Conclusions: The authors demonstrated equivalent overall clinical improvement between endoscopic and open cubital tunnel release in terms of Bishop score and visual analogue scale score reduction. Because of the low power of most studies, further investigations with a larger patient population and longer follow-up are needed to better characterize the role of endoscopic cubital tunnel release.

AB - Background: Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common peripheral entrapment syndrome. To date, there is no true consensus on the ideal surgical management. A minimally invasive, endoscopic approach has gained popularity but has not been adequately compared to the more traditional, open approach. Methods: With compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review was performed to identify studies published between 1990 and 2016 that compared the efficacy of endoscopic cubital tunnel release to open cubital tunnel release. A meta-analysis was then performed through a random-effects model with inverse variance weighting to calculate I2 values for heterogeneity analysis. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group. Results: Five studies involving 655 patients (endoscopic cubital tunnel release, n = 226; open cubital tunnel release, n = 429) were included. Meta-analysis revealed no significant superiority of open release in achieving an “excellent” or “good” Bishop score (OR, 1.27; 95 percent CI, 0.59 to 2.75; p = 0.54) and reduction in visual analogue scale score (mean difference, −0.41; 95 percent CI, −1.49 to 0.67; p = 0.46). However, in the endoscopic release cohort, lower rates of new-onset scar tenderness/elbow pain were found (OR, 0.19; 95 percent CI, 0.07 to 0.53; p = 0.002), but there was a higher incidence of postoperative hematomas (OR, 5.70; 95 percent CI, 1.20 to 27.03; p = 0.03). The reoperation rate in the endoscopic and open release groups was 4.9 and 4.1 percent, respectively (p = 0.90). Conclusions: The authors demonstrated equivalent overall clinical improvement between endoscopic and open cubital tunnel release in terms of Bishop score and visual analogue scale score reduction. Because of the low power of most studies, further investigations with a larger patient population and longer follow-up are needed to better characterize the role of endoscopic cubital tunnel release.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044341560&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044341560&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004112

DO - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004112

M3 - Article

C2 - 29481399

AN - SCOPUS:85044341560

SP - 679

EP - 684

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0032-1052

ER -