Cubital tunnel syndrome

Cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS) is the second most common compression neuropathy of the upper limb, presenting with disturbance of ulnar nerve sensory and motor function. The ulnar nerve may be dynamically compressed during movement, statically compressed due to reduction in tunnel volume or compliance, and tension forces may cause ischaemia or render the nerve susceptible to subluxation, further causing local swelling, compression inflammation and fibrosis. Superiority of one surgical technique for the management of CuTS has not been demonstrated. Different techniques are selected for different clinical situations with simple decompression being the most common procedure due to its efficacy and low complication rate. Adjunctive distal nerve transfer for denervated muscles using an expendable motor nerve to restore the axon population in the distal nerve is in its infancy but may provide a solution for severe intrinsic weakness or paralysis. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:743-750. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200129

Compression neuropathies

Nerve compression disorders affect nerve trunks, particularly in the upper extremity where carpal tunnel syndrome (median nerve compression at the wrist) is the most common and ulnar nerve compression the second most common disorder. Compression affects the various components of the nerve trunk, including the intraneural blood vessels, the Schwann cells, the axons, and the connective tissue components. It results in sensory and motor dysfunction, and sometimes pain. Risk factors for nerve compression disorders are known and may predict surgical outcome. A careful clinical examination should always be done, sometimes complemented with appropriate electrophysiology and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis. If conservative treatment is not appropriate, or fails, simple decompression is generally the primary treatment, but problems may persist. The presence of other neuropathies should be considered.

A comparative study of Lumbar Decompression and Fusion with Internal Fixation versus Simple Decompression in elderly patients with two-segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Objective: To investigate and compare the effect of decompression and fusion with internal fixation vs. simple decompression in the treatment of elderly patients with two-segment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in perioperative and postoperative follow-up periods. Methods: Twenty-eight elderly patients with two-segment LSS admitted in Baoding First Hospital between Mar. 2017 and Jan. 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Fifteen patients who underwent simple decompression were included in the simple decompression group, and 13 who underwent decompression and fusion with internal fixation were included in the decompression-fixation group. The general data and perioperative conditions including wound complications, operation time, blood loss, and VAS (legs) and JOA score were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative leg pain (VAS) between the two groups, and a statistically significant difference in JOA score was found between the two groups one month after the operation. The operation time, length of stay, and blood loss in the decompression-fixation group were significantly different from those in the simple decompression group and no significant difference in wound complications was observed between the two groups. Conclusion: There is no significant difference in leg pain relief in elderly patients with two-segment LSS when treated with decompression and fusion with internal fixation or simple decompression. Simple decompression is associated with less intraoperative injuries, better postoperative functional recovery, and reduced hospital stay. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.1.2287 How to cite this:Tu P, Cao S, Jiang C, Yan CC. A comparative study of Lumbar Decompression and Fusion with Internal Fixation versus Simple Decompression in elderly patients with two-segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Pak J Med Sci. 2021;37(1):256-260. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.1.2287 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The Anatomy, Presentation and Management Options of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common nerve compression syndrome seen in the upper limb. Paresthesia and weakness are the two most common presentations in the hand. If left untreated, compression can lead to irreversible nerve damage, resulting in a loss of function of the forearm and hand. Therefore, recognizing the various clinical presentations of cubital tunnel syndrome can lead to early detection and prevention of nerve damage. Conservative management is usually tried first and involves supporting the elbow using a splint. If this fails and symptoms do not improve, surgical management is indicated. There are 3 main surgical techniques used to relieve compression of the nerve. These are simple decompression, anterior transposition and medial epicondylectomy. Studies comparing the techniques have demonstrated particular advantages to using one or another. However, the overall technique of choice is based on both the clinical scenario and the surgeon’s digression. Following primary cubital tunnel surgery, recurrent symptoms can often occur due to a variety of pathological and non-pathological causes and revision surgery is usually warranted. This article provides a complete review of cubital tunnel syndrome.

Trends in Posterior Cervical Fusion for Deformity in the United States from 2000 to 2017

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCF) is a common treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Treatment paradigms are shifting from simple decompression and fusion to correcting cervical deformities. OBJECTIVE To identify trends in PCF with an emphasis on cervical deformity and surgical complexity. METHODS Adults who underwent PCF from 2000 to 2017 were retrospectively identified in the Premier Healthcare Database (PHD) using International Classification of Disease Codes (ICD) 9 and 10. Patients were dichotomized into those with or without deformity diagnosis. PCF complexity was defined by adjunct surgical codes, including anterior cervical fusion, extension to thoracic levels, and osteotomy. Patient characteristics, including demographics, functional comorbidity index (FCI), and hospital characteristics, were extracted and annual procedures were projected to the US population. RESULTS A total of 68 415 discharges for PCF were identified. Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of PCF from 2000 to 2017 for nondeformity cases was 9.7% and 16.5% for deformity. The demographics with the greatest growth were deformity patients aged 65 to 74 yr (15.1%). The CAGR of anterior cervical fusion and extension to thoracic levels was higher for deformity patients compared to nondeformity patients, 13.6% versus 3.9% and 20.4% versus 16.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION Rates of PCF for deformity are increasing at a greater rate than nondeformity PCF. The most growth was seen among deformity patients aged 65 to 74 yr. Surgical complexity is also changing with increasing use of anterior cervical fusion and extension of PCF to include thoracic levels.

Patient Characteristics in Ulnar Nerve Compression at the Elbow at a Tertiary Referral Hospital and Predictive Factors for Outcomes of Simple Decompression versus Subcutaneous Transposition of the Ulnar Nerve

Patient characteristics and predictive factors for outcomes were analysed in 202 cases undergoing simple decompression, primary subcutaneous transposition, or secondary subcutaneous transposition for ulnar nerve compression at the elbow at a tertiary referral hospital. Data from medical charts and a survey were evaluated. The mean patient age was 49 years with revision surgery cases being significantly younger. Sixty-one percent of cases were female, and 31% were smokers. The comorbidity was extensive, including other nerve compression lesions as well as neck and shoulder problems. Overall, 53% reported being pleased with the result of surgery and 57% of the cases rated function as better or completely recovered after surgery. The median postoperative DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) score was 26 (IQR 11–49), which is in accordance with unpublished national data. No significant differences in DASH scores were found between surgical groups, but a higher preoperative McGowan grade was significantly associated with a poorer postoperative DASH score. Women scored greater disability postoperatively than men. There was a significantly increased risk of complications, which was doubled for smokers, following primary and secondary transposition compared to simple decompression. Surgical cases with ulnar nerve compression treated at a tertiary referral hospital constitute a heterogeneous group with great comorbidity and frequent concomitant nerve compression lesions. We suggest simple decompression as the procedure of first choice. Transposition can be used in selected cases or when simple decompression fails. All patients should be strongly recommended to stop smoking considering the remarkably increased risk for complications among smokers.