Caliandro Pietro, La Torre Giuseppe, Padua Roberto, Giannini Fabio, Padua Luca
Neurology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 15;11(11):CD006839. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006839.pub4.
Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE) 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 and previously updated in 2012.
To determine the effectiveness and safety of conservative and surgical treatment in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE). We intended to test whether:- surgical treatment is effective in reducing symptoms and signs and in increasing nerve function;- conservative treatment is effective in reducing symptoms and signs and in increasing nerve function;- it is possible to identify the best treatment on the basis of clinical, neurophysiological, or nerve imaging assessment.
On 31 May 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus, and LILACS. We also searched PEDro (14 October 2016), and the papers cited in relevant reviews. On 4 July 2016 we searched trials registries for ongoing or unpublished trials.
The review included only randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs evaluating people with clinical symptoms suggesting the presence of UNE. We included trials evaluating all forms of surgical and conservative treatments. We considered studies regarding therapy of UNE with or without neurophysiological evidence of entrapment.
Two review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts of references retrieved from the searches and selected all potentially relevant studies. The review authors independently extracted data from included trials and assessed trial quality. We contacted trial investigators for any missing information.
We identified nine RCTs (587 participants) for inclusion in the review, of which three studies were found at this update. The sequence generation was inadequate in one study and not described in three studies. We performed two meta-analyses to evaluate the clinical (3 trials, 261 participants) and neurophysiological (2 trials, 101 participants) outcomes of simple decompression versus decompression with submuscular or subcutaneous transposition; four trials in total examined this comparison.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; moderate-quality evidence) and neurophysiological improvement (mean difference (in m/s) 1.47, 95% CI -0.94 to 3.87). The number of participants to clinically improve was 91 out of 131 in the simple decompression group and 97 out of 130 in the transposition group. Transposition showed a higher number of wound infections (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.85; moderate-quality evidence).In one trial (47 participants), the authors compared medial epicondylectomy with anterior transposition and found no difference in clinical and neurophysiological outcomes.In one trial (48 participants), the investigators compared subcutaneous transposition with submuscular transposition and found no difference in clinical outcomes.In one trial (54 participants for 56 nerves treated), the authors found no difference between endoscopic and open decompression in improving clinical function.One trial (51 participants) assessed conservative treatment in clinically mild or moderate UNE. Based on low-quality evidence, the trial 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 information provision did not result in further improvement.One trial (55 participants) assessed the effectiveness of corticosteroid injection and found no difference versus placebo in improving symptoms at three months' follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found only two studies of treatment of ulnar neuropathy using conservative treatment as the comparator. The available comparative treatment evidence is not sufficient to support a multiple treatment meta-analysis to identify the best treatment for idiopathic UNE on the basis of clinical, neurophysiological, and imaging characteristics. We do not know when to treat a person with this condition conservatively or surgically. Moderate-quality evidence indicates that simple decompression and decompression with transposition are equally effective in idiopathic UNE, including when the nerve impairment is severe. Decompression with transposition is associated with more deep and superficial wound infections than simple decompression, also based on moderate-quality evidence. People undergoing endoscopic surgery were more likely to have a haematoma. Evidence from one small RCT of conservative treatment showed that in mild cases, information on movements or positions to avoid may reduce subjective discomfort.
肘部尺神经病变(UNE)是仅次于腕管综合征的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。这是一篇综述的更新,该综述首次发表于2010年,之前于2012年进行过更新。
确定肘部尺神经病变(UNE)保守治疗和手术治疗的有效性和安全性。我们旨在检验以下内容:- 手术治疗在减轻症状和体征以及改善神经功能方面是否有效;- 保守治疗在减轻症状和体征以及改善神经功能方面是否有效;- 是否可以根据临床、神经生理学或神经影像学评估确定最佳治疗方法。
2016年5月31日,我们检索了Cochrane神经肌肉专业注册库、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、Embase、AMED、CINAHLHLHL、CINAHL Plus和LILACS。我们还检索了PEDro(2016年10月14日)以及相关综述中引用的文献。2016年7月4日,我们检索了试验注册库以查找正在进行或未发表的试验。
该综述仅纳入评估有临床症状提示存在UNE的患者的随机对照临床试验(RCT)或半随机对照试验。我们纳入评估所有形式手术和保守治疗的试验。我们考虑了有关有无神经卡压神经生理学证据的UNE治疗的研究。
两位综述作者独立审查了检索到的参考文献的标题和摘要,并选择了所有可能相关的研究。综述作者独立从纳入试验中提取数据并评估试验质量。我们就任何缺失信息联系了试验研究者。
我们确定了9项RCT(587名参与者)纳入本综述,其中3项研究是本次更新时找到的。一项研究的序列生成不充分,三项研究未描述序列生成情况。我们进行了两项荟萃分析,以评估单纯减压与肌肉下或皮下转位减压的临床(3项试验,261名参与者)和神经生理学(2项试验,101名参与者)结果;共有4项试验进行了此比较。我们发现,单纯减压和尺神经转位在临床改善(风险比(RR)0.93,95%置信区间(CI)0.80至1.08;中等质量证据)和神经生理学改善(平均差(m/s)1.47,95%CI -0.94至3.87)方面均无差异。单纯减压组131名参与者中有91名临床改善,转位组130名参与者中有97名临床改善。转位显示伤口感染数量更多(RR 0.32,95%CI 0.12至0.85;中等质量证据)。在一项试验(47名参与者)中,作者比较了内上髁切除术与前转位,发现临床和神经生理学结果无差异。在一项试验(48名参与者)中,研究者比较了皮下转位与肌肉下转位,发现临床结果无差异。在一项试验(治疗56条神经的54名参与者)中,作者发现内镜减压和开放减压在改善临床功能方面无差异。一项试验(51名参与者)评估了临床轻度或中度UNE的保守治疗。基于低质量证据,试验作者发现关于避免长时间活动或姿势的信息可有效改善主观不适。除提供信息外,夜间夹板固定和神经滑动练习并未带来进一步改善。一项试验(55名参与者)评估了皮质类固醇注射的有效性,发现与安慰剂相比,在三个月随访时改善症状方面无差异。
我们仅发现两项以保守治疗作为对照的尺神经病变治疗研究。现有的比较治疗证据不足以支持进行多项治疗荟萃分析,以根据临床、神经生理学和影像学特征确定特发性UNE的最佳治疗方法。我们不知道何时对这种情况的患者进行保守治疗或手术治疗。中等质量证据表明,单纯减压和转位减压在特发性UNE中同样有效,包括神经损伤严重时。基于中等质量证据,转位减压比单纯减压与更多的深部和浅部伤口感染相关。接受内镜手术的人更有可能出现血肿。一项小型RCT的保守治疗证据表明,在轻度病例中,关于避免活动或姿势的信息可能会减轻主观不适。