Outcomes Measures Used to Assess Results After Surgery for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Abstract

The primary objective of this systematic review was to identify and analyze the outcomes measures that have been used to evaluate postoperative results following surgery for cubital tunnel syndrome. The secondary objective was to compare the postoperative results among patients evaluated using patient-satisfaction instruments to those evaluated using surgeon-reported scales. Computerized database searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and MEDLINE In-Process were performed. Studies involving adults with cubital tunnel syndrome in whom the surgical intervention was simple decompression, anterior transposition (subcutaneous, submuscular or intramuscular), endoscopic decompression, or medial epicondylectomy were included. A systematic review was performed that included randomized controlled trials, comparative observational studies, noncomparative observational studies, and case series. This systematic review of the literature identified 42 studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. The authors identified 21 health outcomes measures used in cubital tunnel studies. These consisted of 2 generic instruments; 10 symptom-specific, author-reported instruments; 3 symptom-specific, patient-reported instruments; and 6 patient questionnaires. No measure demonstrated adequate development or validation for use in its target population. Available data revealed a consistently high level of patient satisfaction following simple decompression or submuscular transposition (65% to 92%). The results of the author-reported, symptom-specific scales varied widely and showed no obvious association with patient satisfaction. The variation in reporting of results prevented statistical comparisons between author-reported results and patient-reported results. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to delineate the outcomes measures used to evaluate the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. Our results show that reliable, reproducible, and valid outcomes measures are lacking from the surgical literature. A standardized assessment protocol for ulnar neuropathy is required for future comparison trials. Therapeutic III.