A 10-Year Update of Outcome Measures Used to Assess Results After Surgery for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome A Systematic Review of the Literature

HypothesisOutcomes reporting for the surgical release of ulnar nerve cubital tunnel entrapment have variability in subjective, objective, and validated measures. The aim of this study is to review the literature to reassess the measures used to report surgical outcomes for ulnar neurolysis at the elbow.MethodsThis study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines on systematic reviews. Six electronic databases were queried from the past 10 years using specific search terms and Boolean operators. Two independent reviewers assessed 4290 unique titles and abstracts that were screened for inclusion criteria. Sixty-eight full text articles were included for analysis.ResultsStatistical significance was noted in the number of outcome measures reported between studies from journals of impact factor within the first and third quartiles (P = 0.0086) and first and fourth quartiles (P = 0.0247), although no significance exists in the number of cubital tunnel-specific measures based on impact factor (P = 0.0783). Seventy-nine percent (n = 54) of the included studies report subjective measures; 54% (n = 37) included objective measures. Seventy percent (n = 48) of the studies report disease-specific outcome measures.ConclusionThere exists a discordance within the literature regarding the most appropriate, descriptive, and translational measures for reporting surgical outcomes of cubital tunnel syndrome. We recommend journal editors implement a requirement that authors reporting outcomes of ulnar nerve decompression must use a standard, validated measure to make comparisons across the literature universal. Furthermore, a minimum of at least 1 subjective and 1 objective measure should be standard.