0
Articles   |    
Stabilized Subcutaneous Ulnar Nerve Transposition with Immediate Range of Motion Long-Term Follow-up*
Bradford T. Black, M.D.†; O. Alton Barron, M.D.‡; Peter F. Townsend, M.D.§; Steven Z. Glickel, M.D.‡; Richard G. Eaton, M.D.‡
View Disclosures and Other Information
Investigation performed at the C. V. Starr Hand Surgery Center and St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital, New York, N.Y.
A complete video supplement to this article is available from the Video Journal of Orthopaedics. A video clip is available at the JBJS web site, www.jbjs.org. The Video Journal of Orthopaedics can be contacted at (805) 962-3410.
*No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. No funds were received in support of this study.
†Department of Orthopedics, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, 114th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10025.
‡C. V. Starr Hand Surgery Center, 1000 Tenth Avenue, Third Floor, New York, N.Y. 10019.
§Delaware Orthopaedic Center, 2501 Silverside Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19810.

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  2000; 82:1544-1544 
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background: Anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve at the elbow produces generally good results regardless of whether the nerve is transposed subcutaneously, intramuscularly, or submuscularly. The eventual recovery of nerve function is related less to the specific surgical technique than to the severity of the intrinsic nerve pathology. A primary variable in surgical management is the duration of postoperative elbow immobilization. The purpose of this study was to review the long-term results of a specific technique of subcutaneous anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve that utilizes a stabilizing fasciodermal sling. The study compared the results of immediate and late institution of a range of motion postoperatively.

Methods: Forty-seven patients with fifty-one elbows were reexamined, by an investigator who had not been involved in their treatment, at a minimum of two years (range, twenty-four months to fourteen years) after an anterior transposition. Of the fifty-one elbows, twenty-one were immobilized for two to three weeks whereas thirty were managed with an immediate range of motion.

Results: At the latest follow-up evaluation, there were occasional, mild paresthesias in 16 percent of the limbs and there was still subjective weakness of 19 percent. Both pinch and grip strength had increased substantially. No patient had lost elbow motion. A positive Tinel sign persisted in 31 percent of the limbs, but it was mildly positive in most of them. The elbow flexion test was uniformly negative. The results for 92 percent of the limbs were satisfactory to the patients, who stated that they would undergo the same procedure again if necessary. Overall, 73 percent of the limbs had an excellent result; 18 percent, a good result; 4 percent, a fair result; and 6 percent, a poor result. With the numbers available, no significant difference could be detected, with regard to these outcomes, between the group managed with elbow immobilization and that managed with immediate elbow mobilization. However, patients treated with a postoperative cast returned to work at an average of thirty days after surgery whereas the group treated with immediate motion of the elbow returned to work at an average of ten days.

Conclusions: This technique of stabilized subcutaneous anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve yielded predictably good results for a wide spectrum of patients. Patients returned to their occupation sooner when the elbow had been mobilized immediately.

Figures in this Article
    Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common compressive neuropathy of the upper limb and usually responds to nonoperative treatment regimens5. However, for cases that prove refractory to such measures, several surgical options are available1,6,12,13,15,16,19. While the list of options includes decompression in situ and medial epicondylectomy, perhaps the most frequently utilized procedures that have predictably good results are those that transpose the ulnar nerve anteriorly and stabilize it in some manner. The decision to transpose the nerve subcutaneously, intramuscularly, or submuscularly is based largely on the surgeon's preference. This may be primarily due to the fact that the relative benefits and efficacy of the various techniques have been difficult to compare. A review of the largely retrospective body of literature on the subject revealed that outcomes criteria have been variably reported and grading systems, if used at all, have not been consistent1.
    Subcutaneous ulnar nerve transposition has yielded predictably good results in a majority of patients in several studies2,14,18. In 1980, Eaton et al. reported the results of a procedure in which the ulnar nerve was stabilized in the anterior position with a fasciodermal sling2. Subsequently, in an effort to accelerate the patients' return to work and recreational activities, Eaton dispensed with the recommended two to three-week period of initial postoperative immobilization, and all patients were allowed an immediate active range of motion of the elbow3,4. Weirich et al. recently reported on the advantages of an immediate-motion regimen following stabilized anterior subcutaneous transposition22. We are not aware of any report in which the long-term results of subcutaneous ulnar nerve transposition were compared between a group treated with postoperative immobilization and one in which an immediate range of motion was encouraged. Our hypothesis, based initially on anecdotal observations, was that the latter group would return to work and recreational activities sooner than the group treated with immobilization of the elbow and that there would be no difference in long-term outcomes.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1-A:Figs. 1-A through 1-E: Photographs showing the operative technique of stabilized anterior subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve.
    Fig. 1-A: It is important to locate the medial epicondyle (circle) and a point one to one and one-half centimeters anterior to it (+) as the site for anchoring the fasciodermal sling. Once the incision is made, skin retraction makes this more difficult.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1-B:After the ulnar nerve has been mobilized, several centimeters of the medial intermuscular septum (in forceps) must be excised to eliminate a new site of compression of the transposed nerve. The surgeon must be aware of an often large array of veins lying on the posterior surface of the septum at this level.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1-C:After resection of the intermuscular septum, the fascia of the flexor-pronator muscles is dissected to create the sling. Along with the ulnar nerve, the branches of the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve are protected by retraction.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1-D:The fasciodermal sling has been stabilized to the deep dermis under the previously marked skin site. When the skin incision is closed, the anterior flap is brought posteriorly, leaving no tension on the transposed nerve.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1-E:The postoperative dressing is composed only of gauze and an elastic mesh for light compression, allowing for an immediate range of motion of the elbow.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 2:Bar graph comparing the time until the patient returned to work in the two groups.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTable I:  Preoperative Parameters and Results
    *Except where otherwise indicated.
    Group I (N = 21*)Group II (N = 30*)P Value
        Preop.Postop.  Preop.Postop.
    Paresthesias (no. of limbs)173295>0.05
    Weakness (no. of limbs)16 of 204 of 2019 of 275 of 27>0.05
    Average grip strength (kg-force)2933.128.632.7>0.05
    Average pinch strength (kg-force)5.46.55.57.0>0.05
    Sensibility >6 mm (no. of limbs)6 of 16410 of 245>0.05
    Positive Tinel sign (no. of limbs)167249>0.05
    Patient satisfaction (no. of limbs)1927 of 29>0.05
    Average time until patient returned to work (days)29.89.60.002
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTable II:  Bishop Rating System8
    Points
    Satisfaction
        Satisfied2
        Satisfied with reservation1
        Dissatisfied0
    Improvement
        Better2
        Unchanged1
        Worse0
    Severity of residual symptoms (pain, paresthesia/dysesthesia, weakness, clumsiness)
        Asymptomatic3
        Mild, occasional2
        Moderate1
        Severe0
    Work status
        Working or able to work at previous job1
        Not working because of ulnar neuropathy0
    Leisure activity
        Unlimited1
        Limited0
    Strength (compared with that of other hand)
        Both grasp and pinch strength 80%2
        Either grasp or pinch (but not both) <80%1
        Both grasp and pinch <80%0
    Sensibility (static two-point discrimination)
        Normal (£5 mm)1
        Abnormal (>5 mm)0
    Total12
    The cases of forty-seven patients who underwent a total of fifty-one stabilized anterior subcutaneous transpositions from 1973 to 1995 were retrospectively reviewed after a minimum of two years of follow-up. At the latest follow-up evaluation, all patients were interviewed and examined by one of three surgeons (B. T. B., O. A. B., or P. F. T.) who had not been directly involved in the treatment of the study patients. The patients were divided into two groups on the basis of whether the elbow had been immobilized postoperatively or an immediate range of motion had been begun. The patients were naturally divided into these two groups when the senior author (R. G. E.) and the other author whose patients were included in the study (S. Z. G.) ceased to utilize any postoperative immobilization. The latter author discontinued the use of postoperative immobilization at a later time than the former. This explains the somewhat longer average duration of follow-up for the patients treated with immobilization.
    Group I consisted of twenty patients with twenty-one elbows that were immobilized postoperatively for two to three weeks in a long arm cast. There were fourteen male patients and six female patients with an average age of 39.9 years (range, seventeen to sixty-eight years). The duration of follow-up averaged 6.6 years (range, two to thirteen years). Fifteen (71 percent) of the twenty-one procedures were performed in the dominant extremity. Two patients were involved in Workers' Compensation cases.
    Group II consisted of thirty elbows in twenty-seven patients who began an active range of motion in the immediate postoperative period. There were fifteen men and twelve women with an average age of 46.5 years (range, nineteen to eighty-two years). The duration of follow-up for this group averaged 4.9 years (range, two to fourteen years). Seventeen (57 percent) of the thirty procedures were performed in the dominant extremity. Three patients were involved in Workers' Compensation cases.
    The diagnosis of cubital tunnel syndrome was made primarily on the basis of a complete history and physical examination. Symptoms included some combination of pain in the elbow and hand, paresthesias affecting the hand and forearm, weakness of grip and pinch, and loss of hand dexterity. Typical physical findings included combinations of decreased sensibility to light touch and two-point discrimination in the ulnar nerve distribution, hypothenar wasting, diminished pinch and grip strength as measured with a calibrated grip dynamometer and a pinch gauge, a Tinel sign at the cubital tunnel, and a positive elbow flexion test. The percentages of patients with each of the findings are listed in Table I. Corroborative electrodiagnostic studies were not found in the retrospective chart review for eleven (22 percent) of the fifty-one elbows. Preoperative radiographs of the involved elbow (and the cervical spine when indicated) were required for all patients. In forty patients (forty-four elbows), the cause of the cubital tunnel syndrome was nonspecific. An elbow fracture was the cause in five of the remaining seven elbows, and blunt trauma was the cause in two; these cases were essentially equally divided between the two study groups.
    All patients were initially managed with a standard nonoperative treatment regimen, which included one or more courses of anti-inflammatory medication, extension splinting of the elbow, and activity modifications for at least six weeks. The indication for surgery was a diagnosis of cubital tunnel syndrome that persisted despite nonoperative treatment modalities.

    Surgical Technique

    All of the procedures were performed by one of the two senior authors (R. G. E. or S. Z. G.). The technique originally described by Eaton et al.2 was utilized in all patients (Fig. 1-A, Fig. 1-B, Fig. 1-C, Fig. 1-D, and Fig. 1-E). With the patient supine and under regional anesthesia, a tourniquet is placed high on the brachium. The medial epicondyle is marked as a reference point on the elbow, which is flexed to 45 degrees. At a point one to one and one-half centimeters anterior to the medial epicondyle, a second mark is made to indicate where the fascial sling will be sutured to the deep dermis because once the incision is made the skin retracts, distorting the reference points. After exsanguination with an Esmarch bandage, a curvilinear ten-centimeter incision is made midway between the epicondyle and the olecranon. In the deep layer of subcutaneous tissue, one or more branches of the medial brachial and antebrachial cutaneous nerves are variably located, and they must be preserved during the blunt dissection.
    The ulnar nerve is readily palpable proximal to the cubital tunnel, where it lies posterior to the medial intermuscular septum. As the nerve is dissected distally, care must be taken to retain the accompanying longitudinal venae comitantes, thereby preserving critical longitudinal blood supply to the nerve, especially since certain small segmental vessels must be sacrificed to allow for anterior transposition of the nerve. Attempts to preserve as much of the segmental blood supply as possible should be made. Nestled under the posterior aspect of the intermuscular septum is a plexus of veins, which should be dissected from the septum prior to its excision or cauterized. Approximately three centimeters of the distal septum should then be excised.
    At times, a focal constriction of the nerve within the cubital tunnel may be found; if it is, any superficial fibrotic epineurium can be teased apart to relax the constriction. The clinical efficacy of doing so is not known, however. We never perform an internal neurolysis. Once the transverse retinacular fibers forming the fascial roof of the cubital tunnel have been released, dissection is carried distally to the level at which the nerve enters the flexor carpi ulnaris. At or distal to this hiatus between the humeral and ulnar heads of the flexor carpi ulnaris, a transverse arc of fascia may be found and should be divided. Care must be taken to preserve the small motor branches at the proximal aspect of the flexor carpi ulnaris muscle origin. The fascia and muscle are split at a sufficient distance to prevent the creation of more than a 45-degree angle in the transposed nerve when the elbow is extended. As the nerve is mobilized and is moved from its native position to its transposed position, one must avoid any traction on it. To this end, we prefer to use a broad Penrose drain to minimize focal pressures on the nerve.
    The fascia overlying the flexor-pronator origin is cleared of adherent subcutaneous tissue, and a one and one-half-centimeter-wide and two-centimeter-long fascial flap based at the tip of the medial epicondyle is elevated from the muscle. If any vertical intermuscular septae are present, they are released to eliminate any sharp edges upon which the nerve will ultimately rest. No trough is made across the flexor-pronator mass. The nerve is transposed, and the fascial sling is sutured to the sturdy deep dermal tissue with 3-0 absorbable suture. With the skin stretched back toward its original position, the position of the nerve and its fasciodermal sling is evaluated through the full arc of elbow motion. Adjustments in the dermal attachment are rarely necessary. The subcutaneous tissue is closed with absorbable suture followed by a subcuticular closure reinforced with Steri-Strips (3M, St. Paul, Minnesota). A soft mobile dressing is placed about the elbow, and a sling is provided for comfort.
    Postoperatively, all patients are instructed to begin gentle, progressive use of the involved upper limb as tolerated, including an active range of motion, activities of daily living, and the playing of musical instruments. Patients are instructed to avoid forceful use of the involved arm, including manual labor, heavy lifting, and sports involving such use of the upper limb, until six weeks after the surgery, at which time all activity restrictions are eliminated.

    Patient Assessment

    Follow-up evaluation of the patients at a minimum of two years consisted of a complete reexamination and completion of a questionnaire that asked for subjective determinations of satisfaction and functional outcome. The same parameters that were listed as the indications for surgery were reassessed to determine if the surgery had led to a resolution of these problems. Satisfaction, willingness to undergo the procedure again or to recommend the procedure to others, and the number of days until the patient returned to work were all documented.
    Preoperative staging of the severity of the cubital tunnel syndrome was performed with Dellon's staging criteria1. The final outcome was graded according to the Bishop rating system8. This demerit point system assesses the clinical parameters of patient satisfaction, strength, sensibility, residual symptoms, improvement, work status, and leisure activity (Table II).
    All statistical analyses were performed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS for Windows, version 5.02; Chicago, Illinois, 1993). In order to avoid dependency in the data, the four patients who had had bilateral elbow surgery were not included twice in the analyses. Instead, one of the elbows was randomly chosen. Data are presented as averages and standard deviations for continuous variables and as numbers and percentages for nominal variables. The Student t test was used to assess differences between the two groups with respect to continuous measures. Differences between the two groups with respect to categorical measures were tested with chi-square analysis or the Fisher exact test if the expected number of subjects in any cell was less than five. P values of 0.05 or less were considered significant.
    In order to evaluate one of the primary study outcomes (the time until the patient returned to work), sample-size calculations were based on a clinically relevant difference of two weeks between the group treated with immobilization and the group treated with immediate mobilization of the elbow. With twenty-two patients in each group, it was found that this study would have sufficient power (85 percent) to detect this difference at a = 0.05.
    Group I (immobilization for two to three weeks postoperatively in a long arm cast) and Group II (active range of motion begun in the immediate postoperative period) were equivalent with respect to gender, age, whether the dominant extremity was affected, and preoperative severity of the cubital tunnel syndrome. The duration of follow-up in Group I was 1.7 years longer than that in Group II (p = 0.025), for the reasons discussed above.
    The various features of the neuromuscular evaluation are presented in Table I. With the numbers available, no significant differences between the two groups could be found.
    Preoperative severity of cubital tunnel syndrome: According to Dellon's criterial, the cubital tunnel syndrome was classified as mild in eight of the twenty-one Group-I elbows, as moderate in four, and as severe in nine. Similarly, the cubital tunnel syndrome was classified as mild in fourteen of the thirty Group-II elbows, as moderate in seven, and as severe in nine. In the overall group of fifty-one elbows, the cubital tunnel syndrome was classified as mild in 43 percent, as moderate in 22 percent, and as severe in 35 percent.
    Paresthesias: Of the twenty-one elbows in Group I, seventeen were associated with substantial preoperative paresthesias in the ulnar nerve distribution. Postoperatively, the paresthesias had resolved completely in fourteen of the seventeen limbs and the remaining three had occasional, mild paresthesias. One of these three remained essentially unchanged from the preoperative status. In Group II, twenty-nine of the thirty elbows were associated with preoperative paresthesias. Postoperatively, the paresthesias had resolved completely in twenty-four of the twenty-nine limbs whereas the remaining five still had some paresthesias. Two of these five had no change from the preoperative status. No patient who had been free of paresthesias preoperatively complained of paresthesias postoperatively.
    Weakness: In Group I, sixteen of twenty affected limbs were said to be subjectively weak by the patients before the surgery and four felt weak postoperatively. In Group II, nineteen of twenty-seven affected limbs were felt to be weak preoperatively whereas five were said to be weak postoperatively. With the numbers available, the percentages of the affected limbs reported to be weak, either preoperatively or postoperatively, did not differ significantly between the two groups. Moreover, the percentages of preoperatively weak limbs that were reported to be weak postoperatively did not differ significantly between the two groups. Approximately half of the patients in each group reported no change in subjective weakness between the preoperative and postoperative examinations.
    Objective strength: In Group I, average grip strength increased from twenty-nine kilograms-force (range, 9.1 to 54.5 kilograms-force) preoperatively to 33.1 kilograms-force (range, 11.3 to 56.8 kilograms-force) postoperatively, an increase of 14 percent. Average pinch strength increased from 5.4 kilograms-force (range, 2.3 to 9.1 kilograms-force) to 6.5 kilograms-force (range, 3.2 to ten kilograms-force), an increase of 20 percent. In Group II, average grip strength increased from 28.6 kilograms-force (range, 5.5 to 52.3 kilograms-force) to 32.7 kilograms-force (range, 11.4 to 52.3 kilograms-force), an increase of 14 percent, whereas average pinch strength increased from 5.5 kilograms-force (range, 0.5 to 10.5 kilograms-force) to 7.0 kilograms-force (range, 1.4 to 10.5 kilograms-force), an increase of 27 percent. The groups did not differ significantly with regard to objective strength.
    Range of motion: In Group I, all twenty-one elbows exhibited a full range of motion, with no change between the preoperative and final follow-up values. In Group II, only two of the thirty elbows did not have a full preoperative and postoperative range of motion. One elbow had sustained temporally distant trauma, and the range of motion was the same, albeit reduced, both preoperatively and postoperatively. One of the two patients involved in a Workers' Compensation claim had a 20-degree loss of terminal extension and a 10-degree loss of total motion for unknown reasons during an unremarkable postoperative course.
    Sensibility: Two-point discrimination was considered abnormal if it was greater than six millimeters. Six of sixteen affected limbs in Group I and ten of twenty-four in Group II exhibited abnormal two-point discrimination preoperatively. At the time of the most recent follow-up, four of the twenty-one affected limbs in Group I remained abnormal with regard to two-point discrimination, which averaged 7.75 millimeters (range, seven to eight millimeters). In Group II, five of the thirty limbs remained abnormal with regard to two-point discrimination, which averaged 9.4 millimeters (range, seven to thirteen millimeters). Thus, in both groups, two-point discrimination was normal postoperatively in more than 80 percent of the limbs. Only 6 percent (three limbs) exhibited greater than eight millimeters of two-point discrimination.
    Provocative maneuvers (Tinel sign and elbow flexion test): Preoperatively, sixteen of the twenty-one affected limbs in Group I had a positive Tinel sign at the elbow compared with twenty-four of the thirty limbs in Group II. Postoperatively, a positive Tinel sign was found in seven limbs in Group I and in nine in Group II, but it was only mildly positive in the majority of cases. There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to the proportion of patients who had a positive Tinel sign either preoperatively or postoperatively. No elbow in either group had a positive elbow flexion test at the time of the most recent follow-up.
    Patient satisfaction: All patients were asked if they were satisfied with the result and whether they would agree to undergo the procedure again given the same circumstances. The patients were satisfied with the result for nineteen of the twenty-one affected limbs in Group I and for twenty-seven of twenty-nine in Group II.
    Return to work: All patients in the study returned to their previous occupation except for one in Group I. The patients returned to work at an average of 29.8 5.3 days (range, two to ninety-nine days) in Group I and at an average of 9.6 3.3 days (range, zero to sixty days) in Group II (Fig. 2). This difference was highly significant (p = 0.002). Seven of twenty-one patients in Group II actually returned to work on the morning following the surgery, whereas none of the patients in Group I did so.
    Bishop ratings: The surgical results were graded as excellent, good, fair, or poor with use of the Bishop 12-point rating system8 (Table II). In Group I, sixteen of the results were rated as excellent; three, as good; none, as fair; and two, as poor. In Group II, twenty-one results were rated as excellent; six, as good; two, as fair; and one, as poor.
    Our results are consistent with those reported by other authors after use of a similar subcutaneous ulnar nerve transposition14,18,22 as well as after use of other techniques1,6,8,10-13,16-18. From this point of view, the primary information provided by our study, in which there was a longer-term (minimum two-year) follow-up, is that the results of subcutaneous transposition do not deteriorate over time. While most cases of cubital tunnel syndrome resolve within one year after surgery, Leffert's series included two patients with grade-II neuropathy (that is, neurological deficits) who did not achieve their final functional outcome until fifteen months and two years postoperatively10.
    Although most reports reviewed by us6-10,12-14,16-18,20,21,23,24 described the postoperative regimens, few included the amount of time until the patients returned to work or to unlimited activities. Presumably because of a paucity of comparative data, this was not a category in the comparison of outcomes compiled by Dellon1.
    In McGowan's seminal report on forty-six cases of cubital tunnel syndrome treated with anterior transposition, the nerve was transposed subcutaneously in forty-two cases whereas a submuscular position was used in four patients with little subcutaneous fat11. Unfortunately, McGowan made no mention of a specific postoperative protocol, and while he did mention the patients' return to their previous occupation he did not report the time until this occurred.
    In a recent review of the results of subcutaneous ulnar nerve transposition, Osterman and Davis did not mention postoperative protocols or return to activities14. Rettig and Ebben reported on a group of athletes at various competitive levels who had been treated with subcutaneous ulnar nerve transposition18. The elbows were immobilized at 90 degrees for ten days, and the patients were allowed to return to sports as tolerated at six weeks. The average time until the patients returned to full activities was 12.6 weeks.
    This protocol paralleled that described by Eaton et al. in their original report on sixteen patients treated with subcutaneous transposition stabilized with a fasciodermal sling2. All of their patients, including the seven professional pitchers, began active elbow motion after ten to fourteen days of immobilization. Beginning in 1985, the senior author of the present study altered his regimen to permit active elbow motion in the immediate postoperative period. Since the operative technique itself remained unchanged, this allowed for the relatively pure and unbiased comparison that forms the core of the present study. A study very similar to the present one was recently reported by Weirich et al.22. They reviewed the results for thirty-six patients at a minimum of six months after treatment with the stabilized anterior transposition procedure described by Eaton et al.2. The outcomes for twenty patients who had had the elbow mobilized immediately and sixteen patients who had had the elbow immobilized for an average of two weeks did not differ in terms of clinical outcome but did differ significantly with regard to the time until they returned to work and daily activities (a median of one month and 2.75 months in the immediate-mobilization and delayed-mobilization groups, respectively). It is unclear why the forty-seven patients in the present study, who underwent essentially the same operative procedure and postoperative regimen as the patients in the study by Weirich et al., returned to work and daily activities sooner (at an average of thirty and ten days in Groups I and II, respectively).
    To our knowledge, none of the previously described techniques (medial epicondylectomy and submuscular and intramuscular transposition) include the institution of immediate active elbow motion in the postoperative protocol7,9,14,24. Although Heithoff et al. allowed active elbow motion at ten to fourteen days after medial epicondylectomy, they did not allow unrestricted activity until three to six months later6,7. In a comprehensive review, Osterman and Kitay summarized the postoperative regimen as active motion at seven to ten days, progressive strengthening at four weeks, and unrestricted activity by three months15.
    Submuscular transposition seems to require similarly longer periods until a return to unrestricted activities. Pasque and Rayan performed a retrospective review of the cases of forty-eight patients who had been treated with submuscular transposition16. The elbows were immobilized for an average of five weeks postoperatively, and the patients returned to full activities of daily living at an average of six weeks.
    In Leffert's report on forty-eight patients treated with a submuscular transposition, as originally described by Learmonth, all patients had the wrist, forearm, and elbow immobilized for three weeks10. No data regarding return to activities or work were given. Nouhan and Kleinert reviewed the charts of thirty patients treated with submuscular transposition followed by immobilization for 2.5 weeks13. The time until the patients returned to "light duty" averaged 2.5 months, and the time until they returned to "regular duty" averaged 4.2 months. In his review article on submuscular transposition, Siegel noted that range-of-motion and forearm-strengthening exercises were begun at six weeks20. However, except for McGowan grades, no outcomes data were provided.
    Few would disagree that medial epicondylectomy and submuscular anterior transposition require more osseous or soft-tissue dissection than the subcutaneous technique used in the present study. It is not surprising, then, that the earliest return to activities of daily living after those more extensive procedures is at six weeks or that it takes more than four months for some patients to return to full activities. While the clinical outcomes in our two study groups were similar, the patients who had been treated with immobilization returned to activities in an average of thirty days but those treated with immediate motion returned in an average of ten days. These results compare quite favorably with those of the above-mentioned studies.
    Anterior intramuscular transposition is the closest relative of subcutaneous transposition and requires only a mild degree of additional dissection to stabilize the nerve anteriorly9,15. In addition to providing a useful postoperative rating system, Kleinman and Bishop reported the results of their technique8. Their protocol requires immobilization of the elbow in 90 degrees of flexion and the forearm in 45 degrees of pronation for three weeks. Unrestricted activity is begun at eight to ten weeks. This amount of time is still notably longer than that required by our protocol.
    The present study provided preoperative and postoperative outcomes data at a minimum of two years for two groups of patients who underwent the same operation but different postoperative regimens. The similarity of the outcomes of the two groups except for the time until the patients returned to work suggests that an immediate range of motion offers an advantage and disrupts the workplace to a lesser degree. The present study demonstrated that subcutaneous ulnar nerve transposition stabilized with a fasciodermal sling engendered reliable results and high patient satisfaction after follow-up of at least two years.
    Dellon, A. L.:: Review of treatment results for ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. J. Hand Surg.,,14A: 688-700, 1989.14A688  1989 
     
    Eaton, R. G.; Crowe, J. F.; and Parkes, J. C., III: Anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve using a non-compressing fasciodermal sling. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,62-A: 820-825, July 1980.62-A820  1980 
     
    Eaton, R. G.: Anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve including construction of a non-compressing medial cubital septum. J. Orthop. Surg. Tech.,4: 15-23, 1989.415  1989 
     
    Eaton, R. G.: Anterior subcutaneous transposition. In Operative Nerve Repair and Reconstruction, edited by R. H. Gelberman. Vol. 2, pp. 1077-1085. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott, 1991. 
     
    Eisen, A.,, and Danon, J.:: The mild cubital tunnel syndrome. Its natural history and indications for surgical intervention. Neurology,24: 608-613, 1974.24608  1974  [PubMed]
     
    Heithoff, S. J.; Millender, L. H.; Nalebuff, E. A.;, and Petruska, A. J., Jr.: Medial epicondylectomy for the treatment of ulnar nerve compression at the elbow. J. Hand Surg.,15A: 22-29, 1990.15A22  1990 
     
    Heithoff, S. J., and Millender, L. H.: Medial epicondylectomy. In Operative Nerve Repair and Reconstruction, edited by R. H. Gelberman. Vol. 2, pp. 1087-1096. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott, 1991. 
     
    Kleinman, W. B., and Bishop, A. T.: Anterior intramuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve. J. Hand Surg.,14A: 972-979, 1989.14A972  1989 
     
    Kleinman, W. B.: Anterior intramuscular transposition. In Operative Nerve Repair and Reconstruction, edited by R. H. Gelberman. Vol. 2, pp. 1069-1076. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott, 1991. 
     
    Leffert, R. D.: Anterior submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerves by the Learmonth technique. J. Hand Surg.,7: 147-155, 1982.7147  1982 
     
    McGowan, A. J.: The results of transposition of the ulnar nerve for traumatic ulnar neuritis. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,32-B(5): 293-301, 1950.32-B(5)293  1950 
     
    Messina, A., and Messina, J. C.: Transposition of the ulnar nerve and its vascular bundle for the entrapment syndrome at the elbow. J. Hand Surg.,20-B: 638-648, 1995.20-B638  1995 
     
    Nouhan, R., and Kleinert, J. M.: Ulnar nerve decompression by transposing the nerve and z-lengthening the flexor-pronator mass: clinical outcome. J. Hand Surg.,22A: 127-131, 1997.22A127  1997 
     
    Osterman, A. L., and Davis, C. A.: Subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve for treatment of cubital syndrome. Hand Clin.,12: 421-433, 1996.12421  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Osterman, A. L., and Kitay, G. S.: Compression neuropathies: ulnar. In Surgery of the Hand and Upper Extremity, edited by C. A. Peimer. Vol. 2, pp. 1339-1362. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1996. 
     
    Pasque, C. B., and Rayan, G. M.: Anterior submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. J. Hand Surg.,20-B: 447-453, 1995.20-B447  1995 
     
    Plancher, K. D.; McGillicuddy, J. O.; and Kleinman, W. B.: Anterior intramuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve. Hand Clin.,12: 435-444, 1996.12435  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Rettig, A. C., and Ebben, J. R.: Anterior subcutaneous transfer of the ulnar nerve in the athlete. Am. J. Sports Med.,21: 836-840, 1993.21836  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Schuind, F. A.; Goldschmidt, D.; Bastin, C.; and Burny, F.: A biomechanical study of the ulnar nerve at the elbow. J. Hand Surg.,20-B: 623-627, 1995.20-B623  1995 
     
    Siegel, D. B.: Submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve. Hand Clin.,12: 445-448, 1996.12445  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Thomsen, P. B.: Compression neuritis of the ulnar nerve treated with simple decompression. Acta Orthop. Scandinavica,48: 164-167, 1977.48164  1977 
     
    Weirich, S. D.; Gelberman, R. H.; Best, S. A.; Abrahamsson, S. O.; Furcolo, D. C.; and Lins, R. E.: Rehabilitation after subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve: immediate versus delayed mobilization. J. Shoulder and Elbow Surg.,7: 244-249, 1998.7244  1998 
     
    Wilson, D. H., and Krout, R.: Surgery of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. 16 cases treated by decompression without transposition. J. Neurosurg.,38: 780-785, 1973.38780  1973  [PubMed]
     
    Zimmel, N. P.; Jobe, F. W.; and Yocum, L. A.: Submuscular transposition/ulnar nerve decompression in athletes. In Operative Nerve Repair and Reconstruction, edited by R. H. Gelberman. Vol. 2, pp. 1097-1105. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott, 1991. 
     

    Submit a comment

    Topics

    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 2:Bar graph comparing the time until the patient returned to work in the two groups.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1-E:The postoperative dressing is composed only of gauze and an elastic mesh for light compression, allowing for an immediate range of motion of the elbow.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1-D:The fasciodermal sling has been stabilized to the deep dermis under the previously marked skin site. When the skin incision is closed, the anterior flap is brought posteriorly, leaving no tension on the transposed nerve.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1-C:After resection of the intermuscular septum, the fascia of the flexor-pronator muscles is dissected to create the sling. Along with the ulnar nerve, the branches of the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve are protected by retraction.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1-B:After the ulnar nerve has been mobilized, several centimeters of the medial intermuscular septum (in forceps) must be excised to eliminate a new site of compression of the transposed nerve. The surgeon must be aware of an often large array of veins lying on the posterior surface of the septum at this level.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1-A:Figs. 1-A through 1-E: Photographs showing the operative technique of stabilized anterior subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve.
    Fig. 1-A: It is important to locate the medial epicondyle (circle) and a point one to one and one-half centimeters anterior to it (+) as the site for anchoring the fasciodermal sling. Once the incision is made, skin retraction makes this more difficult.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTable I:  Preoperative Parameters and Results
    *Except where otherwise indicated.
    Group I (N = 21*)Group II (N = 30*)P Value
        Preop.Postop.  Preop.Postop.
    Paresthesias (no. of limbs)173295>0.05
    Weakness (no. of limbs)16 of 204 of 2019 of 275 of 27>0.05
    Average grip strength (kg-force)2933.128.632.7>0.05
    Average pinch strength (kg-force)5.46.55.57.0>0.05
    Sensibility >6 mm (no. of limbs)6 of 16410 of 245>0.05
    Positive Tinel sign (no. of limbs)167249>0.05
    Patient satisfaction (no. of limbs)1927 of 29>0.05
    Average time until patient returned to work (days)29.89.60.002
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTable II:  Bishop Rating System8
    Points
    Satisfaction
        Satisfied2
        Satisfied with reservation1
        Dissatisfied0
    Improvement
        Better2
        Unchanged1
        Worse0
    Severity of residual symptoms (pain, paresthesia/dysesthesia, weakness, clumsiness)
        Asymptomatic3
        Mild, occasional2
        Moderate1
        Severe0
    Work status
        Working or able to work at previous job1
        Not working because of ulnar neuropathy0
    Leisure activity
        Unlimited1
        Limited0
    Strength (compared with that of other hand)
        Both grasp and pinch strength 80%2
        Either grasp or pinch (but not both) <80%1
        Both grasp and pinch <80%0
    Sensibility (static two-point discrimination)
        Normal (£5 mm)1
        Abnormal (>5 mm)0
    Total12
    Dellon, A. L.:: Review of treatment results for ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. J. Hand Surg.,,14A: 688-700, 1989.14A688  1989 
     
    Eaton, R. G.; Crowe, J. F.; and Parkes, J. C., III: Anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve using a non-compressing fasciodermal sling. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,62-A: 820-825, July 1980.62-A820  1980 
     
    Eaton, R. G.: Anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve including construction of a non-compressing medial cubital septum. J. Orthop. Surg. Tech.,4: 15-23, 1989.415  1989 
     
    Eaton, R. G.: Anterior subcutaneous transposition. In Operative Nerve Repair and Reconstruction, edited by R. H. Gelberman. Vol. 2, pp. 1077-1085. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott, 1991. 
     
    Eisen, A.,, and Danon, J.:: The mild cubital tunnel syndrome. Its natural history and indications for surgical intervention. Neurology,24: 608-613, 1974.24608  1974  [PubMed]
     
    Heithoff, S. J.; Millender, L. H.; Nalebuff, E. A.;, and Petruska, A. J., Jr.: Medial epicondylectomy for the treatment of ulnar nerve compression at the elbow. J. Hand Surg.,15A: 22-29, 1990.15A22  1990 
     
    Heithoff, S. J., and Millender, L. H.: Medial epicondylectomy. In Operative Nerve Repair and Reconstruction, edited by R. H. Gelberman. Vol. 2, pp. 1087-1096. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott, 1991. 
     
    Kleinman, W. B., and Bishop, A. T.: Anterior intramuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve. J. Hand Surg.,14A: 972-979, 1989.14A972  1989 
     
    Kleinman, W. B.: Anterior intramuscular transposition. In Operative Nerve Repair and Reconstruction, edited by R. H. Gelberman. Vol. 2, pp. 1069-1076. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott, 1991. 
     
    Leffert, R. D.: Anterior submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerves by the Learmonth technique. J. Hand Surg.,7: 147-155, 1982.7147  1982 
     
    McGowan, A. J.: The results of transposition of the ulnar nerve for traumatic ulnar neuritis. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,32-B(5): 293-301, 1950.32-B(5)293  1950 
     
    Messina, A., and Messina, J. C.: Transposition of the ulnar nerve and its vascular bundle for the entrapment syndrome at the elbow. J. Hand Surg.,20-B: 638-648, 1995.20-B638  1995 
     
    Nouhan, R., and Kleinert, J. M.: Ulnar nerve decompression by transposing the nerve and z-lengthening the flexor-pronator mass: clinical outcome. J. Hand Surg.,22A: 127-131, 1997.22A127  1997 
     
    Osterman, A. L., and Davis, C. A.: Subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve for treatment of cubital syndrome. Hand Clin.,12: 421-433, 1996.12421  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Osterman, A. L., and Kitay, G. S.: Compression neuropathies: ulnar. In Surgery of the Hand and Upper Extremity, edited by C. A. Peimer. Vol. 2, pp. 1339-1362. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1996. 
     
    Pasque, C. B., and Rayan, G. M.: Anterior submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. J. Hand Surg.,20-B: 447-453, 1995.20-B447  1995 
     
    Plancher, K. D.; McGillicuddy, J. O.; and Kleinman, W. B.: Anterior intramuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve. Hand Clin.,12: 435-444, 1996.12435  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Rettig, A. C., and Ebben, J. R.: Anterior subcutaneous transfer of the ulnar nerve in the athlete. Am. J. Sports Med.,21: 836-840, 1993.21836  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Schuind, F. A.; Goldschmidt, D.; Bastin, C.; and Burny, F.: A biomechanical study of the ulnar nerve at the elbow. J. Hand Surg.,20-B: 623-627, 1995.20-B623  1995 
     
    Siegel, D. B.: Submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve. Hand Clin.,12: 445-448, 1996.12445  1996  [PubMed]
     
    Thomsen, P. B.: Compression neuritis of the ulnar nerve treated with simple decompression. Acta Orthop. Scandinavica,48: 164-167, 1977.48164  1977 
     
    Weirich, S. D.; Gelberman, R. H.; Best, S. A.; Abrahamsson, S. O.; Furcolo, D. C.; and Lins, R. E.: Rehabilitation after subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve: immediate versus delayed mobilization. J. Shoulder and Elbow Surg.,7: 244-249, 1998.7244  1998 
     
    Wilson, D. H., and Krout, R.: Surgery of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. 16 cases treated by decompression without transposition. J. Neurosurg.,38: 780-785, 1973.38780  1973  [PubMed]
     
    Zimmel, N. P.; Jobe, F. W.; and Yocum, L. A.: Submuscular transposition/ulnar nerve decompression in athletes. In Operative Nerve Repair and Reconstruction, edited by R. H. Gelberman. Vol. 2, pp. 1097-1105. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott, 1991. 
     
    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe




    Related Articles
    Related Cases
    Related Content
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    The Kudo humeral component as primary hemiarthroplasty in distal humeral fractures.
    Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery / American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons ... [et al.]: Issue date- 2011 Oct 15
    A comparison of 2 repair techniques for partial-thickness articular-sided rotator cuff tears.
    Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association: Issue date- 2012 Jan
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    jbjs jobs
    12/22/2011
    ME - Central Maine Medical Center
    12/22/2011
    VA - Charleston Area Medical Center
    12/22/2011
    Virginia - Charleston Area Medical Center