Journals / Turkish Neurosurgery / 2001 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1

İlerlemiş kübital tünel sendromu olan hastalarda basit dekompresyon ve yüzeyel transpozisyon tekniklerinin karşılaştırılması

Comparison of simple decompression and superficial transposition in patients with advanced cubital tunnel syndrome

Pages
51–55
DOI
—
🏛️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)

However, there was no significant difference between the therapeutic effects of the two techniques in this patient group (p>0.05).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This retrospective study investigated the outcomes of surgical therapy in 14 patients with advanced ulnar neuropathy at the elbow.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The mean follow-up was 43.8 months.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, there was no significant difference between the therapeutic effects of the two techniques in this patient group (p>0.05).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ağrı · Kübital tünel sendromu · Kas atrofisi

Abstract

This retrospective study investigated the outcomes of surgical therapy in 14 patients with advanced ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. We evaluated patients clinically and electrophysiologically pre- and postoperatively. The mean follow-up was 43.8 months. The gender distribution in the group indicated that females might be affected more frequently than males (p<0.05). The most common preoperative complaint was pain (n=12; 86%), followed by motor weakness (n=11; 79%) and paresthesia (n=8; 57%). All patients exhibited varying degrees of muscle atrophy and motor deficits, and 10 individuals (71%) had sensory deficits. Electrophysiological testing demonstrated denervation potentials and slowing of motor and/or sensory nerve conduction in all cases. Simple decompression and superficial transposition techniques were performed in six and eight patients, respectively. Neurological status improved markedly after surgery, and long-term postoperative results were good or very good in 71% of the patients. However, there was no significant difference between the therapeutic effects of the two techniques in this patient group (p>0.05).

Özet

Bu geriye dönük çalışmada, dirsek düzeyinde ilerlemiş ulnar nöropatisi olan 14 hastamızdaki cerrahi tedavi sonuçlarımızı sunmaktayız. Hastalarımızı operasyon öncesi ve sonrası dönemde klinik ve elektrofizyolojik olarak değerlendirdik. Ortalama takip süremiz 43.8 aydı. Kadınlar erkeklerden daha fazla etkilenmiş göründü (p 0.05)

🔖

Cite This Article

ERBAYRAKTAR, S., SADE, B., TEKİNSOY, B., YILMAZ, H. S., GÜNER, E. M., ACAR, Ü. D. (2001). İlerlemiş kübital tünel sendromu olan hastalarda basit dekompresyon ve yüzeyel transpozisyon tekniklerinin karşılaştırılması. Turkish Neurosurgery, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1, 51–55. https://ajindex.com/articles/405226

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Artico M, Pastore FS, Nucci F, Giuffre R: 290 surgical procedures for ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow: physiopathology, clinical experience and results. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 142: 303-308, 2000 2. Assmus H: New aspects of pathogenesis and therapy of the cubital tunnel syndrome. Adv Neurosurg 9: 391395, 1981 3. Balogh B, Vass A, Piza-Katzer H: Is transposition of the ulnar nerve in ulnar nerve sulcus syndrome really indicated? Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 29: 133-138, 1997 4. Caputo AF, Watson HK: Subcutaneous anterior transposi tions of the ulna r nerve for failed decompression of cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg (Am) 25:544-551, 2000 5. Dahiin LB, Lundborg G: The neuron and its response to peripheral nerve compression. J Hand Surg 15B:510,1990 6. Dellon AL: Review of treatment results for ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. J Hand Surg 14A: 688-700, 1989 7. Eversmann WW Jr: Compression and entrapment neuropathy of the upper extremity. J Hand Surg 8A: 759-766, 1983 8. Gerl A, Schlüter R: Postoperative kompression und regeneration na ch ulnarisverlagerung. Zentralbl Neurochir 41: 149-166,1980 9. Glowacki KA, Weiss AP: Anterior intramuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 6: 89-96, 1997 10. Greenwald D, Moffitt M, Cooper B: Effective surgical treatment of cubital tunnel sydrome based on provocative clinical testing withou electrodiagnosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 104: 215-218, 1999 11. Hagström P:Ulnar nerve compression at the elbow. Scand J Plast Recontr Surg 11: 59-62, 1977 12. Heithoff SJ: Cubital tunnel syndrome does not require transposition of the ulnar nerve. J Hand Surg (Am) 24: 898-905, 1999 13. Hirsh LF, Thanki A: ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. Tailoring the treatment to the cause. Postgrad Med 77: 211-215,1985 14. Kaempffe FA, FarbachJ: A modified surgical procedure for cubital tunnel syndrome:partial medial epicondylectomy. J Hand Surg 23: 492-499, 1998 15. Kleinman WB: Cubital tunnel syndrome: anterior transposition as a logical approach to complete nerve decompression. J Hand Surg (Am) 24: 886-897, 1999 16. Lascar T, Laulan J: Cubital tunnel syndrome: a retrospective review of 53 anterior subcutaneous transpositions. J Hand Surg (Br) 25B: 453-456, 2000 17. LeRoux PD, Ensign TD, Burchiel KJ: Surgical decompression without transposition for ulnar neuropathy: factors determining outcome. Neurosurgery 27: 709-714, 1990 18. Lundborg G: Surgical treatment for ulnar nerve entrapment a