Endoscopic Versus Open In Situ Decompression for the Management of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopedics Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-01 DOI:10.3928/01477447-20231027-06
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":null,"pages":null},"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.].

内镜与开放式原位减压治疗肘管综合征。
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.]。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Orthopedics
Orthopedics 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
160
审稿时长
3 months
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.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信