RESUMEN
Background The clinical results of conservative treatment options for ulnar compression at the elbow have not been clearly determined. The aim of this review was to evaluate available conservative treatment options and their effectiveness for ulnar nerve compression at the elbow. Methods In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies was performed. Literature search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Results Of the 1,079 retrieved studies, 20 were eligible for analysis and included 687 cases of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Improvement of symptoms was reported in 54% of the cases receiving a steroid/lidocaine injection (95% confidence interval [CI], 41-67) and in 89% of the cases using a splint device (95% CI, 69-99). Conclusions Conservative management seems to be effective. Both lidocaine/steroid injections and splint devices gave a statistically significant improvement of symptoms and are suitable options for patients who refuse an operative procedure or need a bridge to their surgery. Splinting is preferred over injections, as it shows a higher rate of improvement.
RESUMEN
The median nerve can be compressed due to a tumor along the course of the median nerve, causing typical compression symptoms or even persistence or recurrence after an operation. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of rare tumors described in recent publications that cause median nerve compression and to evaluate treatment options. The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies describing median nerve compression due to a tumor in adults, published from the year 2000 and written in English. From 94 studies, information of approximately 100 patients have been obtained. Results The rare tumors causing compression were in 32 patients located at the carpal tunnel, in 21 cases in the palm of the hand, and 28 proximal from the carpal tunnel. In the other cases the compression site extended over a longer trajectory. There were 37 different histological types of lesions. Complete resection of the tumor was possible in 58 cases. A total of 8 patients presented for the second time after receiving initial therapy. During follow-up, three cases of recurrence were reported with a mean follow-up period of 11 months. The most common published cause of median nerve compression is the lipofibromatous hamartoma. Besides the typical sensory and motor symptoms of median nerve compression, a thorough physical examination of the complete upper extremity is necessary to find any swelling or triggering that might raise suspicion of the presence of a tumor.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The median nerve can become compressed at multiple points in the arm, causing carpal tunnel-, pronator-, anterior interosseous-, or lacertus syndrome. Anatomical variations are potential reasons of persisting or recurrent symptoms of median nerve compression and are often recognized late. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive list of rare anatomical variations and malformations causing median nerve compression. METHODS: A total of 62 studies describing median nerve compression due to an anatomical structure in adults published from 2000 in English were included. The findings were: 35 tenomuscular, 16 vascular causes, and 4 cases with nerve involvement. Only 1 osseous and 18 combined anomalies caused compression. In 18 cases, the anomaly was found in the proximal forearm. RESULTS: In 44 cases, the median nerve was surgical released and 35 anomalies were completely resected. Persistent or recurrent symptoms were present in 13 cases. During follow-up, 1 case of recurrence was reported.Standard operative option for median nerve compression consists of an open median nerve release. CONCLUSIONS: In case of persistent or recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome, unilateral symptoms, the presence of a palpable mass, manifestation of symptoms at young age and pain in the forearm or upper arm, the surgeon has to rule out the presence of an anatomical anomaly. Complete resection of the anomaly is not always necessary. The surgeon should be aware of potential anomalies to avoid inadvertent damage at surgery.