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
Rapport de conférence
Ce rapport du CAE est un résumé d'une présentation ou d'un résumé de conférence. Les informations fournies ont limité la capacité à fournir une évaluation précise du risque de biais ou de la qualité globale. Veuillez interpréter les résultats avec prudence car des essais peuvent être en cours et des résultats sélectionnés peuvent avoir été présentés.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
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.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
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.
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
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.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
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.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
