A Systematic Review of Retrospective Evidence on Patient and Surgical Factors in Recurrent Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Document Type : SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Authors

1 Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA

2 Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA

4 1 Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA 2 Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA 3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA

10.22038/abjs.2025.89107.4040

Abstract

Objectives: There is much debate regarding which patient-related risk factors and surgical techniques contribute to recurrent cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS). This systematic review aimed to identify preoperative risk factors and surgical techniques associated with symptom recurrence or revision surgery following cubital tunnel release. 
Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov databases for potentially eligible articles published between January 2009 and November 2024. Using Covidence, four reviewers screened based on predefined inclusion criteria: studies examining recurrent CuTS following surgery, reporting patient characteristics and/or surgical techniques, and published in English. A standardized Excel sheet was utilized to extract patient demographics, recurrence rates, and revision outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Due to heterogeneity in outcomes, no formal metaanalysis was performed, and a narrative synthesis was done. 
Results: Fourteen studies were included, totaling 49,492 patients with idiopathic CuTS treated with ulnar nerve surgery. Revision rates ranged 1.2–23.8%. Younger age was described as a risk factor in ten studies, although one study identified older age as a predictive risk factor. In contrast, another study described it as a protective factor. Diabetes was associated with recurrence risk in two studies, while sex, BMI, and smoking showed inconsistent associations. Severe preoperative symptoms or higher McGowan scores were associated with poorer outcomes in two studies. Overall, recurrence and revision rates were low across all techniques. 
Conclusion: The retrospective nature and limited power of included studies increase risk of selection and Type II errors. Regardless, there seems to be no significant difference in recurrence/revision rates based on surgical techniques. CuTR was often recommended as an initial procedure while ulnar nerve transposition (UNT) was reserved for revisions or patients with nerve subluxation. 
        Level of evidence: III

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Nakashian MN, Ireland D, Kane PM. Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: Current Concepts. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020;13(4):520-524. doi:10.1007/s12178-020-09650-y.
  2. Mcgowan AJ. The results of transposition of the ulnar nerve for traumatic ulnar neuritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1950;32-B(3):293-301. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.32B3.293.
  3. Bacle G, Marteau E, Freslon M, et al. Cubital tunnel syndrome: comparative results of a multicenter study of 4 surgical techniques with a mean follow-up of 92 months. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(4 Suppl):S205-S208. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2014.03.009.
  4. Buchanan PJ, Chieng LO, Hubbard ZS, Law TY, Chim H. Endoscopic versus Open In Situ Cubital Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of 655 Patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(3):679-684. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000004112.
  5. Aldekhayel S, Govshievich A, Lee J, Tahiri Y, Luc M. Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Hand (N Y). 2016;11(1):36-44. doi:10.1177/1558944715616097.
  6. Macadam SA, Gandhi R, Bezuhly M, Lefaivre KA. Simple decompression versus anterior subcutaneous and submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(8):. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2008.03.006.
  7. Smit JA, Hu Y, Brohet RM, van Rijssen AL. Identifying Risk Factors for Recurrence After Cubital Tunnel Release. J Hand Surg Am. 2023;48(5):514.e1-514.e7. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.12.008.
  8. Camp CL, Ryan CB, Degen RM, Dines JS, Altchek DW, Werner BC. Risk factors for revision surgery following isolated ulnar nerve release at the cubital tunnel: a study of 25,977 cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(4):710-715. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.028.
  9. Izadpanah A, Maldonado AA, Bishop AT, Spinner RJ, Shin AY. Risk factors for revision cubital tunnel surgery✰. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73(5):959-964. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2019.12.008.
  10. Schloemann DT, Hammert WC, Mandalapu A, Thirukumaran CP. What Factors Are Associated With Revision Cubital Tunnel Release Within 3 Years?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023;481(10):1954-1962. doi:10.1097/CORR.0000000000002629.
  11. Gaspar MP, Kane PM, Putthiwara D, Jacoby SM, Osterman AL. Predicting Revision Following In Situ Ulnar Nerve Decompression for Patients With Idiopathic Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 2016;41(3):427-435. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.12.012.
  12. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
  13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009:339:b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700.
  14. Wells GA, Shea B, Higgins JP, Sterne J, Tugwell P, Reeves BC. Checklists of methodological issues for review authors to consider when including non‐randomized studies in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2013;4(1):63-77. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1077.
  15. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Available at :https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxfor d.asp. Accessed May 5, 2025.
  16. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version. 2006;1(1):b92.
  17. Krogue JD, Aleem AW, Osei DA, Goldfarb CA, Calfee RP. Predictors of surgical revision after in situ decompression of the ulnar nerve. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(4):634-639. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.015.
  18. Van Nest D, Ilyas AM. Rates of Revision Surgery following In Situ Decompression versus Anterior Transposition for the Treatment of Idiopathic Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. J Hand Microsurg. 2020;12(Suppl 1):S28-S32. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1694292.
  19. Kim BS, Jung KJ, Nho JH, Cha JY. Endoscopic Versus Open In Situ Decompression for the Management of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):e119-e124. doi:10.3928/01477447-20231027-06.
  20. Gökay NS, Bagatur AE. Subcutaneous anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve in cubital tunnel syndrome. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2012;46(4):243-249. doi:10.3944/aott.2012.2836.
  21. Campbell BR, Cohen AR, Alfonsi S, Depascal M, Rengifo S, Ilyas AM. Understanding risk factors for revision surgery after cubital tunnel release: Analysis of patient selection, surgeon, and clinical factors. J Hand Microsurg. 2024;16(5):100148. doi:10.1016/j.jham.2024.100148.
  22. Hutchinson DT, Sullivan R, Sinclair MK. Long-term Reoperation Rate for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: Subcutaneous Transposition Versus In Situ Decompression. Hand (N Y). 2021;16(4):447-452. doi:10.1177/1558944719873153.
  23. Kong L, Bai J, Yu K, Zhang B, Zhang J, Tian D. Predictors of surgical outcomes after in situ ulnar nerve decompression for cubital tunnel syndrome. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018;14:69-74. doi:10.2147/TCRM.S155284.
  24. Tong J, Dong Z, Xu B, Zhang C, Gu Y. Predictors of surgical outcomes for severe cubital tunnel syndrome: a review of 146 patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018;160(3):645-650. doi:10.1007/s00701-017-3420-9.
  25. Suzuki T, Iwamoto T, Shizu K, Suzuki K, Yamada H, Sato K. Predictors of postoperative outcomes of cubital tunnel syndrome treatments using multiple logistic regression analysis. J Orthop Sci. 2017;22(3):453-456. doi:10.1016/j.jos.2017.01.003.
  26. Drake ML, Hensley DT, Chen WC, Taylor KF. Muscle Atrophy at Presentation of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: Demographics and Duration of Symptoms. Hand (N Y). 2017;12(1):64-67. doi:10.1177/1558944716643096.
  27. Matzon JL, Lutsky KF, Hoffler CE, Kim N, Maltenfort M, Beredjiklian PK. Risk Factors for Ulnar Nerve Instability Resulting in Transposition in Patients With Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 2016;41(2):180-183. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.11.014.
  28. Zhang D, Earp BE, Homer SH, Blazar P. Factors Associated With Severity of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome at Presentation. Hand (N Y). 2023;18(3):401-406. doi:10.1177/15589447211058821.
  29. An TW, Evanoff BA, Boyer MI, Osei DA. The Prevalence of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Study in a U.S. Metropolitan Cohort. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(5):408-416. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.01162.
  30. Molina J, Morgan EL, eds. Obesity and Orthopedic Issues. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023.
  31. Kurt S, Kisacik B, Kaplan Y, Yildirim B, Etikan I, Karaer H. Obesity and carpal tunnel syndrome: is there a causal relationship?. Eur Neurol. 2008;59(5):253-257. doi:10.1159/000115639.
  32. Eyth E, Zubair M, Naik R, eds. Hemoglobin A1C. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025.
  33. Tao X, Matur AV, Palmisciano P, et al. Preoperative HbA1c and Postoperative Outcomes in Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2023;48(16):1155-1165. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000004703.
  34. Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. Misunderstanding of race as biology has deep negative biological and social consequences. Exp Physiol. 2024;109(8):1240-1243. doi:10.1113/EP091491.
  35. Shulman B, Bekisz J, Lopez C, Maliha S, Mahure S, Hacquebord J. The Association Between Concomitant Ulnar Nerve Compression at the Elbow and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Hand (N Y). 2020;15(3):335-340. doi:10.1177/1558944718813669.
  36. McEntee RM, Henry TW, Bhatt SD, Beredjiklian PK, Matzon JL, Lutsky K. Wound Dehiscence Following Cubital Tunnel Surgery. J Hand Surg Am. 2023;48(6):622.e1-622.e7. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.12.012.
  37. McDaniel JC, Browning KK. Smoking, chronic wound healing, and implications for evidence-based practice. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2014;41(5):415-E2. doi:10.1097/WON.0000000000000057.
  38. Goldberg BJ, Light TR, Blair SJ. Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: results of medial epicondylectomy. J Hand Surg Am. 1989;14(2 Pt 1):182-188. doi:10.1016/0363-5023(89)90003-8.
  39. Menorca RM, Fussell TS, Elfar JC. Nerve physiology: mechanisms of injury and recovery. Hand Clin. 2013;29(3):317-330. doi:10.1016/j.hcl.2013.04.002.
  40. Öztürk T, Zengin EÇ, Şener U, Şener M. Endoscopic versus open in situ decompression for the management of cubital tunnel syndrome. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2022;56(2):125-130. doi:10.5152/j.aott.2022.21143.
  41. Catalano LW 3rd, Barron OA. Anterior subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve. Hand Clin. 2007;23(3):339-vi. doi:10.1016/j.hcl.2007.06.005.
  42. Kleinman WB, Bishop AT. Anterior intramuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve. J Hand Surg Am. 1989;14(6):972-979. doi:10.1016/s0363-5023(89)80046-2.
  43. Williams EH, Dellon AL. Anterior submuscular transposition. Hand Clin. 2007;23(3):345-vi. doi:10.1016/j.hcl.2007.05.004.
  44. Said J, Van Nest D, Foltz C, Ilyas AM. Ulnar Nerve In Situ Decompression versus Transposition for Idiopathic Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: An Updated Meta-Analysis. J Hand Microsurg. 2019;11(1):18-27. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1670928.
  45. DeGeorge BR Jr, Kakar S. Decision-Making Factors for Ulnar Nerve Transposition in Cubital Tunnel Surgery. J Wrist Surg. 2019;8(2):168-174. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1665548.

 

 

 

The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 13, Issue 10
October 2025
Pages 611-621

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 02 July 2025
  • Revise Date: 31 July 2025
  • Accept Date: 25 August 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics