Dergiler / Hand and Microsurgery / 2018 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1

Outcome and predictors in simple decompression of ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow

Sayfa
24–32
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Older patients, those with amanual profession, and constant symptoms of UNE tend to be less improved after surgery.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objectives: Simple decompression is an accepted surgical treatment of ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow (UNE).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Ourpurpose was to evaluate the outcome and potential predictors for the outcome after simple decompression in UNE.Methods: All surgically treated UNE cases (from 2004-2008) at our department were studied retrospectively.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Older patients, those with amanual profession, and constant symptoms of UNE tend to be less improved after surgery.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:2004-2008 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objectives: Simple decompression is an accepted surgical treatment of ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow (UNE). Ourpurpose was to evaluate the outcome and potential predictors for the outcome after simple decompression in UNE.Methods: All surgically treated UNE cases (from 2004-2008) at our department were studied retrospectively. Out of 285primary surgeries, 242 primary simple ulnar nerve decompressions were included. Medical records, including electrophysiologicprotocols, were reviewed and postoperative outcome was graded: 1) cured/improved and 2) unchanged/worsenedsymptoms, based on surgeon-evaluated outcome.Results: Of the 242 simple decompressions (122 males and 120 females; median age 50.5 years), 101 cases were students,retired, un-employed, or on a long-term sick-leave and 112 had manual, blue-collar type of work. 189 cases werecured or improved, while 53 cases had no change in, or even worsened, symptoms. Gender, presence of smoking, orassociated diseases did not affect outcome, while a tendency was observed for higher age, a manual occupation and constantsymptoms. Out of 196 cases electrophysiologically examined, 155 cases showed signs of ulnar nerve affection (56reduced conduction velocity; 19 conduction block; 80 axonal degeneration; latter two groups significantly worse outcome).Conclusion: Patients with a preoperatively electrophysiologically diagnosed nerve conduction block or axonal degenerationhave higher risk of not being cured or improved after simple decompression in UNE. Older patients, those with amanual profession, and constant symptoms of UNE tend to be less improved after surgery.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ZIMMERMAN, M., ANDERSSON, G. S., ANKER, I., JACOBSSON, H., DAHLIN, L. B. (2022). Outcome and predictors in simple decompression of ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. Hand and Microsurgery, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1, 24–32. https://ajindex.com/articles/533952

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (1)

  1. Mondelli M, Giannini F, Ballerini M, Ginanneschi F, Martorelli E. Incidence of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow in the province of Siena (Italy). J Neurol Sci 2005;234:5-10. 2.Descatha A, Leclerc A, Chastang JF, Roquelaure Y. Study Group on Repetitive W. Incidence of ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow in repetitive work. Scand J Work Environ Health 2004;30:234-40. 3.Bartels RH, Verbeek AL. Risk factors for ulnar nerve compression at the elbow: a case control study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2007;149:669-74; discussion 74. 4.Kakosy T. Tunnel syndromes of the upper extremities in workers using hand-operated vibrating tools. Med Lav 1994;85:474-80. 5.Richardson JK, Green DF, Jamieson SC, Valentin FC. Gender, body mass and age as risk factors for ulnar mononeuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve 2001;24:551-4. 6.Stamboulis E, Vassilopoulos D, Kalfakis N. Symptomatic focal mononeuropathies in diabetic patients: increased or not? J Neurol 2005;252:448-52. 7.Novak CB, Lee GW, Mackinnon SE, Lay L. Provocative testing for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am 1994;19:817-20. 8.Beekman R, Schreuder AH, Rozeman CA, Koehler PJ, Uitdehaag BM. The diagnostic value of provocative clinical tests in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow is marginal. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2009;80:1369-74. 9.Visser LH, Beekman R, Franssen H. Short-segment nerve conduction studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve 2005;31:331-8. 10.Todnem K, Michler RP, Wader TE, Engstrom M, Sand T. The impact of extended electrodiagnostic studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. BMC Neurol 2009;9:52. 11.Caliandro P, La Torre G, Padua R, Giannini F, Padua L. Treatment for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;11:CD006839. 12.Dellon AL, Hament W, Gittelshon A. Nonoperative management of cubital tunnel syndrome: an 8-year prospective study. Neurology 1993;43:1673-7. 13.Svernlov B, Larsson M, Rehn K, Adolfsson L. Conservative treatment of the cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2009;34:201-7. 14.Shah CM, Calfee RP, Gelberman RH, Goldfarb CA. Outcomes of rigid night splinting and activity modification in the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am 2013;38:1125-30e1. 15.Cho YJ, Cho SM, Sheen SH, Choi JH, Huh DH, Song JH. Simple decompression of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2007;42:382-7. 16.Biggs M, Curtis JA. Randomized, prospective study comparing ulnar neurolysis in situ with submuscular transposition. Neurosurgery 2