SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Acta Medica Alanya / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

Endoscopically assisted decompression in cubital tunnel syndrome: clinical and electrophysiological evaluation

Kübital tünel sendromunda endoskopi yardımlı gevşetme, klinik ve elektrofizyolojik değerlendirme

Özgün Barış Güntürk(Emot Hastanesi)0000-0003-4022-5821
Atilla Çıtlak(GİRESUN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1889-0446
Cihan Aslan(ÇEŞME ALPER ÇİZGENAKAT DEVLET HASTANESİ)0000-0002-5146-6287
Tuğrul Bulut(IZMIR KATIP CELEBI UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7075-0873
Ufuk Şener(UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, İZMİR TEPECİK HEALTH RESEARCH CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT OF NEUROLOGY)0000-0003-4496-9457
Muhittin Şener(Private Practice)0000-0002-4544-3644
Pages
149–155
Publication Date
2026-08-16
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Postoperative NCV did not correlate with clinical outcomes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Endoscopic decompression has become an increasingly popular technique for cubital tunnel syndrome in recent years.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Seven patients (43.8%) were women.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Postoperative NCV did not correlate with clinical outcomes.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Endoskopik · kübital tünel · sinir cerrahisi

Abstract

Aim: Endoscopic decompression has become an increasingly popular technique for cubital tunnel syndrome in recent years. This study aimed to report the clinical and electrophysiological outcomes of patients treated with the endoscopy-assisted decompression technique for cubital tunnel syndrome. Patients and Methods: Sixteen patients were included in this study. Seven patients (43.8%) were women. The mean age was 47.1 years, and the mean follow-up period was 8.8 months. All surgeries were performed using a 4 mm, 30-degree endoscope, a grooved retractor, and 20 cm blunt-tipped scissors. Dellon’s classification was utilized for preoperative staging, and the modified Bishop grading system was used to evaluate postoperative outcomes. Dynamometric and electromyographic measurements were performed preoperatively and at the final follow-up. Results: Two patients were evaluated as Grade 1, eight as Grade 2, and six as Grade 3 (Dellon). The modified Bishop score was excellent for 13 patients (81.3%), good for two (12.5%), and fair for one (6.3%). The mean ratio of grip strength to the normal side was 70% preoperatively, which increased to 94% postoperatively (p < 0.001). The mean nerve conduction velocity (NCV) was 34.44 m/s preoperatively and 48.74 m/s postoperatively (p < 0.001). No significant correlation was found between postoperative NCV and modified Bishop scores (p = 0.136). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that the endoscopic-assisted decompression technique could be successfully performed with low complication rates. Postoperative NCV did not correlate with clinical outcomes.

Özet

Amaç: Kübital tünel sendromu için endoskopik gevşetme son yıllarda popülaritesi artan tekniklerden biridir. Bu çalışmada kübital tünel sendromu için endoskopi yardımlı gevşetme tekniği ile tedavi edilen hastaların klinik ve elektrofizyolojik sonuçlarını bildirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Hastalar ve Yöntem: Onaltı hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Yedi hasta (%43,8) kadın, dokuz hasta (%56,3) erkekti. Ortalama yaş 47.1 idi. Ortalama takip süresi 8.8 aydı. Tüm ameliyatlar 4 mm-30 derece endoskop, oluklu ekartör ve 20 cm künt uçlu makas kullanılarak yapıldı. Özel yapım bir alet kullanılmadı. Preoperatif evreleme için Dellon'un sınıflandırması ve postoperatif klinik sonuçların değerlendirilmesi için modifiye Bishop derecelendirme sistemi kullanıldı. Dinamometrik ve elektromiyografik ölçümler ameliyat öncesi ve son kontrolde yapıldı. Bulgular: Preoperatif Dellon sınıflandırmasına göre iki hasta derece 1, sekiz hasta derece 2 ve altı hasta derece 3 olarak değerlendirildi. Modifiye Bishop skoru 13 hasta (%81,3) için mükemmel, 2 hasta için iyi (%12,5), 1 hasta için orta (%6,3) olarak saptandı. Etkilenen elin normal ele ortalama kavrama gücü oranı ameliyat öncesi %70 idi. Bu oran son muayenede %94'e yükseldi (p <0.001). Ortalama sinir ileti hızı (NCV) ameliyat öncesi 34.44 m/s ve postoperatif 48.74 m/s idi. Preoperatif ve postoperatif NCV arasında anlamlı fark vardı (p <0,001). Hastaların postoperatif NCV ve modifiye Bishop skorları arasında anlamlı bir ilişki yoktu (p = 0.136). Sonuç: Çalışmamız, endoskopik yardımlı dekompresyon tekniğinin düşük komplikasyon oranları ile başarılı bir şekilde gerçekleştirilebileceğini göstermiştir. Postoperatif NCV klinik sonuçlarla korele değildir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Güntürk, Ö. B., Çıtlak, A., Aslan, C., Bulut, T., Şener, U., Şener, M. (2026). Endoscopically assisted decompression in cubital tunnel syndrome: clinical and electrophysiological evaluation. Acta Medica Alanya, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 149–155. https://doi.org/10.30565/medalanya.1916352

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (24)

  1. Elhassan B, Steinmann SP. Entrapment neuropathy of the ulnar nerve. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(11):672-81. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200711000-00006.
  2. Palmer BA, Hughes TB. Cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(1):153-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.11.004.
  3. Soltani AM, Best MJ, Francis CS, Allan BJ, Panthaki ZJ. Trends in the surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome: an analysis of the national survey of ambulatory surgery database. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38(8):1551-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.04.044.
  4. Cobb TK. Endoscopic cubital tunnel release. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(10):1690-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.07.030.
  5. Damert HG, Altmann S, Infanger M, Kraus A. Operative decisions for endoscopic treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. Orthopedics. 2013;36(5):354-9. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20130426-04.
  6. Tsai TM, Bonczar M, Tsuruta T, Syed SA. A new operative technique: cubital tunnel decompression with endoscopic assistance. Hand Clin. 1995;11(1):71-80. PMID: 7751334.
  7. Cobb TK, Sterbank PT, Lemke JH. Endoscopic cubital tunnel recurrence rates. Hand (N Y). 2010;5(2):179-83. doi: 10.1007/s11552-009-9227-2.
  8. Hoffmann R, Siemionow M. The endoscopic management of cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Br. 2006;31(1):23-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsb.2005.08.008.
  9. Dellon AL. Review of treatment results for ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. J Hand Surg Am. 1989;14(4):688-700. doi: 10.1016/0363-5023(89)90192-5.
  10. Kleinman WB, Bishop AT. Anterior intramuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve. J Hand Surg Am. 1989;14(6):972-9. doi: 10.1016/s0363-5023(89)80046-2.
  11. Bolster MA, Zöphel OT, van den Heuvel ER, Ruettermann M. Cubital tunnel syndrome: a comparison of an endoscopic technique with a minimal invasive open technique. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2014;39(6):621-5. doi: 10.1177/1753193413498547.
  12. Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Kelm J, Reith W, Schwerdtfeger K, Steudel WI. Simple decompression or subcutaneous anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Br. 2005;30(5):521-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsb.2005.05.011.
  13. Biggs M, Curtis JA. Randomized, prospective study comparing ulnar neurolysis in situ with submuscular transposition. Neurosurgery. 2006;58(2):296-304; discussion 296-304. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000194847.04143.A1.
  14. Macadam SA, Gandhi R, Bezuhly M, Lefaivre KA. Simple decompression versus anterior subcutaneous and submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(8):1314.e1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2008.03.006.
  15. Watts AC, Bain GI. Patient-rated outcome of ulnar nerve decompression: a comparison of endoscopic and open in situ decompression. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34(8):1492-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.05.014.
  16. Dützmann S, Martin KD, Sobottka S, Marquardt G, Schackert G, Seifert V, et al. Open vs retractor-endoscopic in situ decompression of the ulnar nerve in cubital tunnel syndrome: a retrospective cohort study. Neurosurgery. 2013;72(4):605-16; discussion 614-6. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182846dbd.
  17. Ahcan U, Zorman P. Endoscopic decompression of the ulnar nerve at the elbow. J Hand Surg Am. 2007;32(8):1171-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2007.07.004.
  18. Flores LP. Endoscopically assisted release of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2010;152(4):619-25. doi: 10.1007/s00701-009-0578-9.
  19. Yoshida A, Okutsu I, Hamanaka I. Endoscopic anatomical nerve observation and minimally invasive management of cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2009;34(1):115-20. doi: 10.1177/1753193408094443.
  20. Tsai TM, Chen IC, Majd ME, Lim BH. Cubital tunnel release with endoscopic assistance: results of a new technique. J Hand Surg Am. 1999;24(1):21-9. doi: 10.1053/jhsu.1999.jhsu25a0021.
  21. Bultmann C, Hoffmann R. Die endoskopische Dekompression des Nervus ulnaris bei Kubitaltunnelsyndrom [Endoscopic decompression of the ulnar nerve in cubital tunnel syndrome]. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2009;21(2):193-205. German. doi: 10.1007/s00064-009-1707-6.
  22. Zimmerman NB, Kaye MB, Wilgis EF, Zimmerman RM, Dubin NH. Are standardized patient self-reporting instruments applicable to the evaluation of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(3):463-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.02.010.
  23. Gummesson C, Ward MM, Atroshi I. The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:44. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-7-44.
  24. Mirza A, Mirza JB, Lee BK, Adhya S, Litwa J, Lorenzana DJ. An anatomical basis for endoscopic cubital tunnel release and associated clinical outcomes. J Hand Surg Am. 2014;39(7):1363-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.04.030.