AAHS 2014: Simple open vs. endoscopic decompression for cubital tunnel syndrome .
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(20):618 studies (level II evidence and below) investigating the use of open simple or endoscopic release of idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome were included in this systematic review to compare the clinical outcome and complication rates between these procedures. The results of the study demonstrated that open simple decompression and endoscopic decompression are both effective treatments for cubical tunnel syndrome. Assessments of complications did show that hematoma occurred in more patients receiving endoscopic treatment, but these cases were mostly managed conservatively. Contrastingly, endoscopic treatment was found to reduce medial antebrachial cutaneous (MABC) nerve injury and scar sensitivity when compared to open treatment. Further research is required using randomized controlled trials before definitive conclusion can be made regarding the comparative efficacy of these treatments
Informe de la conferencia
Este informe de la ACE es un resumen de una presentación o resumen de conferencia. La información proporcionada ha limitado la capacidad de ofrecer una evaluación precisa del riesgo de sesgo o de la calidad general. Por favor, interprete los resultados con precaución ya que los ensayos pueden estar en curso y se pueden haber presentado resultados seleccionados.
¿Por qué se necesitaba ahora este estudio?
While several techniques currently exist for the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome, there is no clear consensus on which one is the most effective. Recent studies have shown that endoscopic release may provide promising results for patients with cubital tunnel syndrome when compared to other possible treatments, and so this study aimed to compare the outcomes and complications of open simple decompression and endoscopic decompression of the ulnar nerve.
¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?
How do the outcomes and complications of endoscopic decompression compare to open simple decompression, for the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome?
- 18 studies met inclusion criteria. 471 open simple releases were described in 9 studies and 413 endoscopic releases reported in the other 9 (6 studies in each group were level 2 evidence, the remaining studies were level 4).
- In the open simple release group, 84.1% of patients experienced “good” or “excellent” results, compared to 85.9% in the endoscopic group.
- Overall complication rate was 4.2% in the open group; including hematoma (1 case), medial antebrachial cutaneous (MABC) nerve injury (14 cases), sensitive scar (4 cases), and infection (1 case). Overall complication rate in the endoscopic group was 6.5%; including hematoma (16 cases), numbness (4 cases), MABC nerve injury (1 case), ulnar nerve subluxation (5 cases), and infection (1 case).
- Re-operation rate was 2.3% in the open group, due to persistent symptoms, and 2.4% in the endoscopic group, due to persistent symptoms (4 cases), hematoma (2 cases) nerve subluxation (2 cases), and infection (1 case).
- 2 cases in the endoscopic group required conversion to open decompression due to ganglion surrounding the nerve and nerve subluxation.
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?
Both treatments resulted in patients experiencing good or excellent results. Complications were similar between the treatment methods, but it should be noted that a larger amount of patients in the endoscopic group experienced hematoma. Re-operation was also comparable between the groups.
¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?
Open simple decompression and endoscopic decompression are both effective treatments for cubical tunnel syndrome when looking at clinical outcomes and re-operation rates. Further investigations using RCTs are required before definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the comparative efficacy of these treatment options.
DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDAD
El contenido de esta página tiene únicamente fines informativos y no pretende sustituir el consejo, diagnóstico o tratamiento médico profesional. Si necesita tratamiento médico, busque siempre el consejo de su médico o acuda al servicio de urgencias más cercano. Las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista expresados por las personas sobre el contenido que se encuentra en esta página no reflejan las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista de OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 artículos mensuales GRATIS desbloqueados
