Prospective Comparison of Techniques for Cubital Tunnel Release

NCT ID: NCT02466841

Last Updated: 2023-04-13

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

WITHDRAWN

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2015-08-31

Study Completion Date

2019-11-01

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

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.

The purpose of this study is to prospective evaluate patients undergoing cubital tunnel release according to the standard practice and preference of their surgeon. The investigators plan to compare the different techniques at standard post-operative intervals.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

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.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Patients undergoing cubital tunnel release surgery

Patients undergoing cubital tunnel release surgery will be enrolled. All enrolled subjects will be followed regardless of the technique used by surgeon.

Cubital tunnel release

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Patients undergoing cubital tunnel release for ulnar nerve compression at elbow

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Cubital tunnel release

Patients undergoing cubital tunnel release for ulnar nerve compression at elbow

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* patients indicated to surgery by attending surgeon

Exclusion Criteria

* previous cubital tunnel release on ipsilateral side
* unable/unwilling to provide consent
* pregnant women
* prisoners
* \< 18 years of age
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

University of Pittsburgh

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

John Fowler

MD

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Palmer BA, Hughes TB. Cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 2010 Jan;35(1):153-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.11.004.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 20117320 (View on PubMed)

Osei DA, Padegimas EM, Calfee RP, Gelberman RH. Outcomes following modified oblique medial epicondylectomy for treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 2013 Feb;38(2):336-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.11.006. Epub 2013 Jan 3.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 23291082 (View on PubMed)

MacDermid JC, Grewal R. Development and validation of the patient-rated ulnar nerve evaluation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013 Apr 26;14:146. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-146.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 23617407 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

PRO15040063

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Carpal Tunnel Release Efficacy Trial
NCT06934187 NOT_YET_RECRUITING NA
Bilateral vs Unilateral CTR
NCT01961011 UNKNOWN