Eric J. Gullborg MS , Justin Castonguay BA , Vincent P. Federico MD , Sayyida Hasan BS , Xavier C. Simcock MD , Matthew W. Colman MD
{"title":"Surgical Management of Double Crush Syndrome: Outcomes of Cervical Decompression With and Without Peripheral Nerve Release","authors":"Eric J. Gullborg MS , Justin Castonguay BA , Vincent P. Federico MD , Sayyida Hasan BS , Xavier C. Simcock MD , Matthew W. Colman MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jhsg.2025.100770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Double crush syndrome involves two distinct compressive lesions along a single peripheral nerve. Patients with compressive neuropathies at the wrist and elbow may experience exacerbated symptoms from cooccurring cervical radiculopathy. Surgical management aims to decompress at either or both proximal and distal sites. This study compares outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) alone versus ACDF with subsequent peripheral nerve decompression.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This retrospective study evaluated patients with double crush lesions, diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed cervical radiculopathy and carpal or cubital tunnel syndrome via electrodiagnostic confirmation. Two cohorts were matched and analyzed: (1) ACDF alone and (2) those with ACDF with subsequent peripheral nerve decompression. All procedures were performed at a single institution between 2004 and 2020, with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Postoperative symptoms, examination findings, patient-reported outcomes, and reoperations were compared.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 130 patients (66 receiving ACDF alone, 64 with additional peripheral nerve decompression), those with both procedures had a significantly longer duration of preoperative radicular/peripheral symptoms (29.2 months vs 18.3 months). At the latest follow-up, patients receiving ACDF alone had significantly more persistent numbness (42.4% vs 17.2%), nerve irritability (21.2% vs 4.7%), and reduced 2-point discrimination (20.3% vs 12.1%) when compared with those who had bimodal decompression. Patients receiving both procedures reported significantly greater improvements in visual analog scale neck pain (−5.62 vs −3.63), visual analog scale arm pain (−4.73 vs −3.54), and neck disability index scores (−17.50 vs −6.80).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Isolated cervical decompression may be insufficient for double crush neuropathies. Treatment of both proximal and distal sites can provide superior pain and symptom relief. Management of compressive pathology at both sites should be strongly considered by treating surgeons.</div></div><div><h3>Type of study/level of evidence</h3><div>Therapeutic III.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36920,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online","volume":"7 5","pages":"Article 100770"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589514125000908","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
Double crush syndrome involves two distinct compressive lesions along a single peripheral nerve. Patients with compressive neuropathies at the wrist and elbow may experience exacerbated symptoms from cooccurring cervical radiculopathy. Surgical management aims to decompress at either or both proximal and distal sites. This study compares outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) alone versus ACDF with subsequent peripheral nerve decompression.
Methods
This retrospective study evaluated patients with double crush lesions, diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed cervical radiculopathy and carpal or cubital tunnel syndrome via electrodiagnostic confirmation. Two cohorts were matched and analyzed: (1) ACDF alone and (2) those with ACDF with subsequent peripheral nerve decompression. All procedures were performed at a single institution between 2004 and 2020, with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Postoperative symptoms, examination findings, patient-reported outcomes, and reoperations were compared.
Results
Among 130 patients (66 receiving ACDF alone, 64 with additional peripheral nerve decompression), those with both procedures had a significantly longer duration of preoperative radicular/peripheral symptoms (29.2 months vs 18.3 months). At the latest follow-up, patients receiving ACDF alone had significantly more persistent numbness (42.4% vs 17.2%), nerve irritability (21.2% vs 4.7%), and reduced 2-point discrimination (20.3% vs 12.1%) when compared with those who had bimodal decompression. Patients receiving both procedures reported significantly greater improvements in visual analog scale neck pain (−5.62 vs −3.63), visual analog scale arm pain (−4.73 vs −3.54), and neck disability index scores (−17.50 vs −6.80).
Conclusions
Isolated cervical decompression may be insufficient for double crush neuropathies. Treatment of both proximal and distal sites can provide superior pain and symptom relief. Management of compressive pathology at both sites should be strongly considered by treating surgeons.
目的:双重挤压综合征包括沿单个周围神经的两个不同的压缩病变。腕部和肘部压缩性神经病患者可能会因同时发生颈神经根病而加重症状。手术治疗的目的是在近端和远端减压或同时减压。本研究比较了单纯颈前路椎间盘切除术和融合(ACDF)与ACDF合并周围神经减压的结果。方法回顾性研究双挤压病变患者,经磁共振成像证实为颈神经根病,经电诊断证实为腕管或肘管综合征。对两个队列进行匹配和分析:(1)单独ACDF和(2)ACDF合并周围神经减压的患者。所有手术于2004年至2020年在同一家机构进行,随访时间至少为1年。比较术后症状、检查结果、患者报告的结果和再手术。结果在130例患者中(66例单独行ACDF, 64例附加外周神经减压),两种手术的患者术前神经根/外周症状持续时间明显延长(29.2个月vs 18.3个月)。在最近的随访中,与双峰减压患者相比,单独接受ACDF的患者有明显更多的持续麻木(42.4%对17.2%),神经烦躁(21.2%对4.7%),2点辨别(20.3%对12.1%)降低。接受这两种手术的患者在视觉模拟量表颈部疼痛(- 5.62 vs - 3.63)、视觉模拟量表手臂疼痛(- 4.73 vs - 3.54)和颈部残疾指数评分(- 17.50 vs - 6.80)方面均有显著改善。结论单纯颈椎减压术治疗双压迫性神经病变效果不理想。治疗近端和远端部位可以提供优越的疼痛和症状缓解。治疗外科医生应强烈考虑对两个部位压缩病理的处理。研究类型/证据水平:治疗性