Prospective Comparison of Techniques for Cubital Tunnel Release

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare different techniques for cubital tunnel release. Specific Aims: 1. Determine if there are differences in patient-directed outcomes scores between different techniques used for cubital tunnel release. 2. Determine if there are differences in post-operative pain scores between different techniques used for cubital tunnel release. 3. Determine if there are differences in objective measurements such as range of motion and grip strength scores between different techniques used for cubital tunnel release. 4. Determine if there are differences in complications between different techniques used for cubital tunnel release. Background: Compression of the ulnar nerve at the elbow (cubital tunnel syndrome) is the second most common compressive neuropathy of the upper extremity (carpal tunnel is the most common). Patients who fail conservative treatment (activity modification, splinting, medications) are offered cubital tunnel release. There are multiple techniques to decompress the ulnar nerve at the elbow, but the ideal release has not been determined. These techniques vary from simple decompression of the nerve (in-situ release, endoscopic release), to decompressing the nerve and moving it anteriorly to take tension off the nerve (subcutaneous transposition, sub-fascial transposition, sub muscular transposition), and removing part of the medial epicondyle (medial epicondylectomy). Each procedure has purported benefits and also potential complications. Simple in-situ release has the benefit of shorter operative times and less surgical dissection, however, the nerve may subluxate post-operatively and cause persistent pain. Procedures to move the nerve (subcutaneous transposition, sub-fascial transposition, sub muscular transposition) prevent subluxation and take tension off the nerve, however, they require more dissection, larger incisions, and also partially devascularize the nerve. Medial epicondylectomy prevents subluxation and decompresses the nerve, but some patients may have a prolonged recovery and persistent pain from removing part of the bone. Significance: The results of this study may provide a high level of evidence to determine if specific techniques for cubital tunnel decompression result in improved patient outcomes and/or fewer complications.