Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify and characterize factors that may contribute to revision surgery following primary cubital tunnel release (CuTR) surgery. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed by reviewing all patients who underwent CuTR at a single institution between 2014 and 2021. Only primary in situ CuTR surgeries were included. Exclusion criteria were any case of primary ulnar nerve transpositions or ulnar nerve decompression surgery related to pathology other than isolated ulnar neuropathy (ie. elbow fracture repair, medial epicondylitis debridement, etc.). Revision surgery was defined as return to the operating room by the index surgeon or another surgeon within the same practice for repeat ulnar nerve decompression and/or transposition. Patient demographics and surgical information was analyzed to determine factors that may be associated with revision surgery following primary in situ ulnar nerve decompression. RESULTS: A total of 1367 patients met inclusion criteria. Revision rate following primary CuTR was 1.2 % (n = 16). Of the factors evaluated, younger age (46.6 vs 57.0 years) and a history of cervical stenosis had a higher correlation with undergoing a revision. Patients who had revision surgery were more likely to have negative electrodiagnostic studies versus those who did not. Otherwise, there was no association between sex, race, tobacco use, medical comorbidities, symptom severity, bilateral symptoms, or concurrent surgery and the subsequent need for revision ulnar nerve decompression. CONCLUSIONS: Following primary in situ CuTR, younger age or a history of cervical stenosis may be at higher risk of undergoing revision surgery. Additionally, patients without electrodiagnostic evidence of ulnar neuropathy may have less reliable outcomes versus those who have a positive nerve study. Given the unpredictable nature of ulnar nerve surgery, further prospective data including diagnostic imaging and biomechanical evaluation of patients following ulnar nerve release may help provide a deeper understanding of this unique patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level IV.