77
CUBITAL TUNNEL SYNDROME: Diagnosis and Management

42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Cubital tunnel syndrome

Citation preview

Page 1: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

CUBITAL TUNNEL SYNDROME:

Diagnosis and Management

Page 2: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

OUTLINE• Anatomy• Epidemiology • Clinical exam• Treatment options• Submuscular transposition technique• OITE relevant stuff• Statistics:

– Effect size– Meta-analysis

Page 3: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

EPIDEMIOLOGY• Ulnar nerve compression at the elbow:

Second most common compression neuropathy of the upper limb

• Incidence: 25 per 100000 person years– USA: 75000 cases annually – World-wide: 1.5 million cases

Page 4: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

HISTORY

• Treated surgically for the first time in 1816 by Henry Early

Page 5: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

TREATMENT OPTIONS• Simple decompression• Medial epicondylectomy• Ulnar nerve transposition

– Subcutaneous– Intramuscular– Submuscular

ULNAR NERVE TRANSPOSITION IS THE MOST COMMON PROCEDURE (Dutch survey data)

Page 6: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

PRO SIMPLE DECOMPRESSION

• Preserves blood supply to ulnar nerve• Shorter operation• Earlier recovery because anatomical

location of ulnar nerve is preserved

Page 7: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

PRO TRANSPOSITION

• Only transposition addresses the dynamic compression of the ulnar nerve seen with elbow flexion

Page 8: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

ANATOMY

• Osbornes ligament:– Between FCU heads where ulnar nerve

enters forearm • Struthers arcade

– Fascial thickening in medial upper arm intermuscular septum where ulnar nerve enters dorsal compartment

Page 9: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

OSBORNE’S LIGAMENT

Page 10: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 11: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

ARCADE OF STRUTHERS

INCIDENCE: 13.5%

Page 12: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 13: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 14: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

STRUTHER’S LIGAMENT

-MEDIAN nerve passes between ligament and humerus and can be compressed

-Incidence: 1%

-Can be associated with bony spur visible on xrays

-Don’t confuse with Struther’s Arcade!!!

Page 15: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

CLINICAL SIGNS

• Sensory changes in ulnar nerve distribution (little+ring finger)

• Intrinsic weakness (not always!)• Tinel’s sign at medial elbow• Elbow flexion test (3 min @ 120° flexion

reproduces symptoms)• Wartenberg’s sign • Fromment’s sign

Page 16: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

AUTONOMOUS ULNAR NERVE SENSORY ZONE

Page 17: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

• Most sensitive: 30 sec of elbow flexion in conjunction with direct pressure at ulnar nerve

93% SENSITIVITY

Page 18: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Wartenberg’s Sign

• Ulnar abduction of 5th digit due to due to intrinsic weakness and unopposed abduction by extensor digiti minimi (because of it’s slightly ulnar insertion)

• Don’t confuse with Wartenberg’s syndrome!

Page 19: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Wartenberg’s Syndrome

• Sensory RADIAL nerve neuritis• Pain in radial distal forearm

Page 20: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

FROMMENT SIGN

• Can’t adduct thumb (ulnar nerve)• Flexes thumb IP joint instead (median nerve)

Page 21: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Martin-Gruber Anastomosis

• Median to ulnar nerve anastomosis• Mainly motor fibers• Incidence: 17%• Therefore intrinsic weakness not always

present in cubital tunnel syndrome

Page 22: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Is Nerve Compression or Traction causing

Symptoms?

Page 23: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

BASIC SCIENCE

CLINICAL DATA

Page 24: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 25: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

CROSS SECTION

Page 26: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Is Nerve Compression or Traction causing Symptoms?

Gelberman RH et al. Changes in interstitial pressure and cross-sectional area of the cubital tunnel and of the ulnar nerve with flexion of the elbow. JBJS Am. 1998

Page 27: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 28: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

TRACTION IS THE PROBLEM - Simple decompression insufficient

Page 29: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 30: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

LITERATURE REVIEW• A systematic review based on non-

randomized data • n=3024 patients in 60 studies• Potential selection bias: patients with less

severe symptoms were treated more frequently with simple decompression

Bartels RH, Menovsky T, Van Overbeeke JJ, Verhagen WI. Surgical management of ulnar nerve compression at the elbow: an analysis of the literature. J Neurosurg. 1998;89:722-7.

Page 31: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

COMPRESSION IS THE PROBLEM

BETTER RESULTS WITH SIMPLE DECOPMPRESSION

Page 32: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

BASIC SCIENCE: Traction is the problem!

CLINICAL DATA: Compression is the

problem!

Page 33: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 34: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

• Less biased estimate of the true treatment effects

• Randomized data only

Page 35: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

• No previous elbow trauma • No previous surgery • All patients failed initial

conservative treatment• Only randomized trials were

included to limit selection bias

Page 36: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

DIAGNOSIS CONFIRMED BY EMG IN ALL CASES

Page 37: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

STUDY IDENTIFICATION• Medline• Embase• Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews • Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials • CINAHL • Annual meeting archives:

– Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (2004-2006) – American Association of Plastic Surgeons (2005-2006) – American Association of Neurological Surgeons (2001-2006) – American Society for Surgery of the Hand (2001-2006)

INDPENDENT SEARCH BY 2 OF US

Page 38: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

METHODS

• Duplicate assessment of methodological quality (Detsky scale)

• Duplicate data abstraction independently by two of us

• Assessment of heterogeneity(Hedges & Olkin)

• Assessment of publication bias• Random effects model for pooling data• Outcome parameters converted to effect sizes

Page 39: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

OUTCOME PARAMETER

•Post-op EMG•Post clinical score

– McGowan score– Bishop score– Medical Research Council score

Page 40: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

RESULTS

Page 41: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Screening

Page 42: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

STUDY CHARACTERISTICS• 4 studies identified

– 2 studies: simple decompression versus submuscular ulnar nerve transposition (n=117)

– 2 studies: simple decompression versus subcutaneous ulnar nerve transposition (n=218).

• Total of 335 randomized patients, 327 of whom were followed up (98%).

• Sample sizes: 47 to 152 • Average age: 51 years • 65% males

Page 43: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

AUTHORS OF IDENTIFIED STUDIES WERE CONTACTED AND ALL PROVIDED

THE RAW DATA

Page 44: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

SEVERITY OF SYMPTOMS

• Majority of patients with moderate or severe symptoms – Dellon grade (II or III)– Pre-operative Medical Research Council grade

(avg. of 4.3 on 1-7 scale)– Pre-op EMG (avg. NCV of 35 m/s)

Page 45: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Pre-op Nerve Conduction Velocity

Post-op Nerve Conduction Velocity

Page 46: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Post-op Clinical Scores: Effect Size

Page 47: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

WHAT IS EFFECT SIZE?

• A number that expresses a difference between two groups as a multitude of standard deviations

Page 48: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 49: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

COHEN’s EFFECT SIZE

•Mild: 0.2•Moderate: 0.5•Large: 0.8

CLINICAL SCORE EFFECT SIZE BETWEEN AT AND SD: -0.04 (-0.36 to 0.28)

Page 50: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

CONCLUSIONS

1. No difference in motor nerve conduction velocities and clinical outcome scores

2. Confidence intervals around the points of estimate are narrow probably excluding clinically meaningful differences

Page 51: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

SINCE ULNAR NERVE TRANSPOSITION IS THE MORE

INVASIVE OF THE TWO PROCEDURES, THIS DATA

SUPPORTS THE USE OF SIMPLE DECOMPRESSION OF THE

ULNAR NERVE.

Page 52: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

TREND TOWARDS BETTER RESULTS WITH TRANSPOSITIONBEWARE: INCLUDES NON-RANDOMIZED DATA!!!

Page 53: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

MEDIAL EPICONDYLECTOMY

Page 54: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 55: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

NO MAJOR DIFFERENCES, BUT HIGHER SATISFACTION AFTER MEDIAL EPICONDYLECOMY

Page 56: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 57: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

BOTTOMLINE:NO CONSENSUS

ON BEST TREATMENT

Page 58: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

ANTERIOR TRANSPOSITION INDICATIONS

• Prior injury to elbow• Revision surgery • Intra-operative ulnar nerve subluxation

Page 59: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

SUBMUSCULAR / INTRAMUSCULAR TRANSPOSITION

TECHNIQUE

Page 60: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 61: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 62: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 63: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 64: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 65: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 66: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 67: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 68: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 69: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 70: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 71: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 72: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 73: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 74: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
Page 75: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

OITE Reminder:• Struther’s Arcade• Wartenberg’s sign

• Struther’s ligament

• Wartenberg syndrome

ULNAR NERVE

MEDIAN NERVE

RADIAL NERVE

Page 76: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

CASE ID: 19

Page 77: 42_Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

THANK YOU