Suppr超能文献

肘部尺神经病变的治疗。

Treatment for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow.

作者信息

Caliandro Pietro, La Torre Giuseppe, Padua Roberto, Giannini Fabio, Padua Luca

机构信息

Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, Milan, Italy.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jul 11(7):CD006839. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006839.pub3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow is the second most common entrapment neuropathy after carpal tunnel syndrome. Treatment may be conservative or surgical but optimal management remains controversial. This is an update of a review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of conservative and surgical treatments in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (20 February 2012), CENTRAL (2012, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to February 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2012), AMED (January 1985 to February 2012), CINAHL Plus (January 1937 to February 2012), LILACS (January 1982 to Feburary 2012), PEDro (January 1980 to February 2012), and the papers cited in relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The review included only randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs evaluating people with clinical symptoms suggesting the presence of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. We included trials evaluating all forms of surgical and conservative treatments. We considered studies regarding therapy of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow with or without neurophysiological evidence of entrapment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts of references retrieved from the searches and selected all potentially relevant studies. The authors extracted data from included trials and assessed trial quality independently. They contacted trial investigators for missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six RCTs (430 participants), with moderate quality evidence, for inclusion in the review. When the searches were updated in 2012 we found no further studies. The sequence generation was not adequate in one study and not described in two studies. We performed two meta-analyses to evaluate the clinical (three trials, 261 participants included) and neurophysiological (two trials, 101 participants included) outcomes of simple decompression versus decompression with submuscular or subcutaneous transposition.We found no difference between simple decompression and transposition of the ulnar nerve for both clinical improvement (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.08) and neurophysiological improvement (mean difference (in m/s) 1.47, 95% CI -0.94 to 3.87). In the simple decompression group 91 out 131 patients clinically improved; in the transposition group 97 out 130 patients improved. Transposition showed a higher number of wound infections (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.85).In one trial (47 participants) the authors compared medial epicondylectomy with anterior transposition and found no difference in the clinical and neurophysiological outcomes.One trial (51 participants) assessed conservative treatment in clinically mild or moderate ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. The authors found that information on avoiding prolonged movements or positions was effective in improving subjective discomfort. Night splinting and nerve gliding exercises in addition to the information did not produce further improvement.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is not sufficient to identify the best treatment for idiopathic ulnar neuropathy at the elbow on the basis of clinical, neurophysiological and imaging characteristics. We do not know when to treat a patient conservatively or surgically. However, the results of our meta-analysis suggest that simple decompression and decompression with transposition are equally effective in idiopathic ulnar neuropathy at the elbow, including when the nerve impairment is severe. In mild cases, evidence from one small RCT of conservative treatment showed that information on movements or positions to avoid may reduce subjective discomfort.

摘要

背景

肘部尺神经病变是继腕管综合征之后第二常见的卡压性神经病变。治疗方法可以是保守治疗或手术治疗,但最佳治疗方案仍存在争议。这是一篇首次发表于2010年的综述的更新版本。

目的

确定肘部尺神经病变保守治疗和手术治疗的有效性和安全性。

检索方法

我们检索了Cochrane神经肌肉疾病专业组专门注册库(2012年2月20日)、Cochrane系统评价数据库(2012年第2期)、医学期刊数据库(1966年1月至2012年2月)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(1980年1月至2012年2月)、联合和补充健康护理数据库(1985年1月至2012年2月)、护理学与健康领域数据库(1937年1月至2012年2月)、拉丁美洲和加勒比地区健康科学数据库(1982年1月至2012年2月)、循证医学数据库(1980年1月至2012年2月)以及相关综述中引用的文献。

入选标准

该综述仅纳入评估有肘部尺神经病变临床症状患者的随机对照临床试验(RCT)或半随机对照试验。我们纳入了评估所有形式手术和保守治疗的试验。我们考虑了关于肘部尺神经病变治疗的研究,无论是否有卡压的神经生理学证据。

数据收集与分析

两位作者独立审查检索到的参考文献的标题和摘要,并选择所有潜在相关研究。作者从纳入试验中提取数据并独立评估试验质量。他们联系试验研究者获取缺失信息。

主要结果

我们确定了6项RCT(430名参与者),证据质量中等,纳入本综述。2012年更新检索时未发现进一步的研究。一项研究中的序列产生不充分,两项研究未描述序列产生情况。我们进行了两项荟萃分析,以评估单纯减压与肌下或皮下转位减压的临床(三项试验,纳入261名参与者)和神经生理学(两项试验,纳入101名参与者)结果。我们发现,对于临床改善(风险比(RR)0.93,95%置信区间(CI)0.80至1.08)和神经生理学改善(平均差(m/s)1.47,95%CI -0.94至3.87),单纯减压与尺神经转位之间无差异。单纯减压组131例患者中有91例临床改善;转位组130例患者中有97例改善。转位组伤口感染数量较多(RR 0.32,95%CI 0.12至0.85)。在一项试验(47名参与者)中,作者比较了内侧上髁切除术与前侧转位,发现临床和神经生理学结果无差异。一项试验(51名参与者)评估了肘部临床轻度或中度尺神经病变的保守治疗。作者发现,关于避免长时间运动或姿势的信息可有效改善主观不适。除该信息外,夜间夹板固定和神经滑动练习未产生进一步改善。

作者结论

现有证据不足以根据临床、神经生理学和影像学特征确定肘部特发性尺神经病变的最佳治疗方法。我们不知道何时对患者进行保守治疗或手术治疗。然而,我们的荟萃分析结果表明,单纯减压和转位减压在肘部特发性尺神经病变中同样有效,包括神经损伤严重时。在轻度病例中,一项小型保守治疗RCT的证据表明,关于避免运动或姿势的信息可能会减轻主观不适。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验