Byung-Sung Kim, Ki Jin Jung, Jae-Hwi Nho, Joo Young Cha
{"title":"Endoscopic Versus Open In Situ Decompression for the Management of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.","authors":"Byung-Sung Kim, Ki Jin Jung, Jae-Hwi Nho, Joo Young Cha","doi":"10.3928/01477447-20231027-06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study compared the results of endoscopic cubital tunnel release (eCuTR) with those of open cubital tunnel release (oCuTR) for the management of cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS). In this retrospective study, 35 patients underwent eCuTR or oCuTR. Group I and group II consisted of 16 patients undergoing eCuTR and 19 patients undergoing oCuTR, respectively. Patients were asked to report paresthesia and pain, and electromyography was performed. The Dellon and Bishop classifications were used. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores were recorded, as well as the key pinch strength and two-point discrimination. The incision length and operation duration were noted. The mean follow-up was 39 months. The mean operating time was longer in the endoscopy group (43 vs 22 minutes). Overall, 34.3% (n=12) of the cases were classified as Dellon grade II and 65.7% (n=23) were classified as Dellon grade III. According to the Bishop score, excellent or good results were obtained for 75% of the patients in the eCuTR group and 78.9% of the patients in the oCuTR group. In the eCuTR and oCuTR groups, all outcome measures improved after surgery: DASH score (preoperative, 37.7 vs 30.7; postoperative, 15.4 vs 20), VAS score (preoperative, 7.8 vs 7.3; postoperative, 4.3 vs 4.1), pinch strength (preoperative, 74 vs 66; postoperative, 93 vs 84), and two-point discrimination (preoperative, 5.6 vs 6.6; postoperative, 4.9 vs 4.5). No significant difference was apparent between the two techniques in outcomes. However, the endoscopic release had a higher reoperation rate and took twice as long to perform despite having a shorter incision. [<i>Orthopedics</i>. 2024;47(3):e119-e124.].</p>","PeriodicalId":19631,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedics","volume":" ","pages":"e119-e124"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20231027-06","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study compared the results of endoscopic cubital tunnel release (eCuTR) with those of open cubital tunnel release (oCuTR) for the management of cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS). In this retrospective study, 35 patients underwent eCuTR or oCuTR. Group I and group II consisted of 16 patients undergoing eCuTR and 19 patients undergoing oCuTR, respectively. Patients were asked to report paresthesia and pain, and electromyography was performed. The Dellon and Bishop classifications were used. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores were recorded, as well as the key pinch strength and two-point discrimination. The incision length and operation duration were noted. The mean follow-up was 39 months. The mean operating time was longer in the endoscopy group (43 vs 22 minutes). Overall, 34.3% (n=12) of the cases were classified as Dellon grade II and 65.7% (n=23) were classified as Dellon grade III. According to the Bishop score, excellent or good results were obtained for 75% of the patients in the eCuTR group and 78.9% of the patients in the oCuTR group. In the eCuTR and oCuTR groups, all outcome measures improved after surgery: DASH score (preoperative, 37.7 vs 30.7; postoperative, 15.4 vs 20), VAS score (preoperative, 7.8 vs 7.3; postoperative, 4.3 vs 4.1), pinch strength (preoperative, 74 vs 66; postoperative, 93 vs 84), and two-point discrimination (preoperative, 5.6 vs 6.6; postoperative, 4.9 vs 4.5). No significant difference was apparent between the two techniques in outcomes. However, the endoscopic release had a higher reoperation rate and took twice as long to perform despite having a shorter incision. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):e119-e124.].
本研究比较了内镜下肘管松解术(eCuTR)和开放式肘管松脱术(oCuTR)治疗肘管综合征(CuTS)的结果。在这项回顾性研究中,35名患者接受了eCuTR或oCuTR。第一组和第二组分别由16名接受eCuTR的患者和19名接受oCuTR的患者组成。患者被要求报告感觉异常和疼痛,并进行肌电图检查。使用了Dellon和Bishop分类法。记录手臂、肩膀和手部残疾(DASH)和视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分,以及关键握力和两点辨别力。记录切口长度和手术时间。平均随访39个月。内窥镜检查组的平均手术时间更长(43分钟vs 22分钟)。总体而言,34.3%(n=12)的病例被归类为Dellon II级,65.7%(n=23)被归类为Dell III级。根据Bishop评分,eCuTR组75%的患者和oCuTR组78.9%的患者获得了优异或良好的结果。在eCuTR和oCuTR组中,术后所有结果指标均有所改善:DASH评分(术前37.7 vs 30.7;术后15.4 vs 20)、VAS评分(术后7.8 vs 7.3;术后4.3 vs 4.1)、握力(术前74 vs 66;术后93 vs 84),和两点判别(术前,5.6比6.6;术后,4.9比4.5)。两种技术在结果上没有明显差异。然而,内镜下松解术的再次手术率更高,尽管切口更短,但手术时间是原来的两倍。[骨科.202x;4x(x):xx-xx.]。
期刊介绍:
For over 40 years, Orthopedics, a bimonthly peer-reviewed journal, has been the preferred choice of orthopedic surgeons for clinically relevant information on all aspects of adult and pediatric orthopedic surgery and treatment. Edited by Robert D''Ambrosia, MD, Chairman of the Department of Orthopedics at the University of Colorado, Denver, and former President of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, as well as an Editorial Board of over 100 international orthopedists, Orthopedics is the source to turn to for guidance in your practice.
The journal offers access to current articles, as well as several years of archived content. Highlights also include Blue Ribbon articles published full text in print and online, as well as Tips & Techniques posted with every issue.