Clinicians › Elbow

Cubital tunnel release

Surgeon-side topic for cubital tunnel release. Backed by 354 articles from the corpus, retrieved via combined MeSH + title-text matching.

93 citationsUpdated Oct 2026

For patients: a plain-language version of this topic is available. See the patient guide.

Overview

Cubital tunnel release is an effective surgical intervention for cubital tunnel syndrome, yielding clinically relevant relief of hand symptoms and improvements in pain and function both within and outside the ulnar nerve distribution [1, 8]. In the majority of cases, surgery results in cure or improvement, with more than 90% of patients achieving these outcomes [18]. The procedure is also effective in revision settings; the majority of patients undergoing revision cubital tunnel release and submuscular transposition experience symptom relief [3]. The incidence of failure requiring ipsilateral revision surgery remains steadily low at 1.4% [22].

Short-term complication rates for cubital tunnel surgery are generally low, averaging 5.6% [34]. Specific rates vary by technique, with in situ cubital tunnel release carrying a 3.6% complication rate compared to 9.6% for ulnar nerve transposition [34]. Despite these low rates, cubital tunnel release appears to carry a higher liability than other hand surgery procedures such as carpal tunnel release [5]. There is a strong association between the two conditions, as patients undergoing carpal tunnel release are 15 times more likely to undergo cubital tunnel release than the general population, and vice versa, with patients undergoing cubital tunnel release being 11.5 times more likely to undergo carpal tunnel release [4]. Postoperative results and complications for concomitant endoscopic carpal and cubital tunnel release are comparable to those performed alone [9].

Endoscopic cubital tunnel release is a minimally invasive, simple, and fast procedure that allows for smaller incisions, faster recovery, and minimal scarring [48]. Its safety and efficacy are comparable to more invasive procedures [48], and it is considered a safe and reliable alternative to conventional open release in uncomplicated cases of cubital tunnel syndrome [27]. Early short-term results are encouraging, showing satisfactory outcomes and minimal complications [19], particularly in patients with mild to moderate symptoms [10]. However, due to the low power of included studies, further investigations with larger patient populations, longer follow-up, and better documentation of endoscopic devices and techniques are needed to better characterize the role of endoscopic cubital tunnel release [6]. Most surgeons use more than one operative procedure in their treatment of patients with cubital tunnel syndrome [37], with the selection of the operative procedure influenced by patient factors and surgeon preference [37].

Anatomy & Pathophysiology

Epidemiology and Clinical Presentation

Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common entrapment neuropathy of the upper extremity, following carpal tunnel syndrome [23]. The reported incidence is nearly 21 cases per 100,000 people per year [23], with a prevalence in the United States population ranging between 1.8% and 5.9% [65]. Male gender is a risk factor for the condition [65], and patients often have a history of trauma to the anatomic site of the cubital tunnel [65].

Clinically, patients present with worsening sensory numbness of the hand and digits in an ulnar distribution [23]. This progresses to motor weakness of the hypothenar musculature and clawing of the hand due to loss of intrinsic musculature [23]. Pain is not a common symptom, though an aching pain localized to the elbow or proximal forearm may be reported [23].

Anatomical Structures and Compression Sites

The ulnar nerve’s posterior location and superficial course render it susceptible to irritation, compression, and traction, particularly with elbow motion [63]. The most common site of entrapment is about the elbow [63]. Compression may arise from space-occupying lesions, proximal compression at the ligament of Struthers (medial intermuscular septum), or distal fascial bands between the ulnar and humeral heads of the flexor carpi ulnaris [63]. Additionally, compression may occur about the roof of the cubital tunnel in patients with an anconeus epitrochlearis [63].

Key anatomical landmarks include Osborne’s ligament, the thickened fascia between the medial epicondyle and olecranon [51]. The medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve lies along the fascia usually about 3 cm distal to the medial epicondyle [51]. Proximal to the cubital tunnel, the arcade of Struthers and the medial intermuscular septum are potential areas of compression [51]. During proximal dissection, the superior ulnar collateral artery must be protected to limit the risk of nerve infarction [51]. The anconeus epitrochlearis muscle may be encountered and incised directly over the cubital tunnel during decompression [51].

The dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve innervates the ulnar aspect of the dorsum of the hand and arises from the ulnar nerve approximately 6 cm proximal to the wrist [23]. If sensation is diminished in this distribution, the localization is proximal to this nerve and likely within the cubital tunnel [23]. Conversely, with preserved dorsal sensation, the lesion may be localized to Guyon canal in the wrist [23].

Biomechanics and Pathophysiology

With progressive elbow flexion, the ulnar nerve experiences friction, traction, and compression forces [35]. Elbow flexion diminishes the volume of the cubital tunnel and elongates the nerve [63]. The area within the cubital tunnel decreases beyond 90° of elbow flexion [94], and maximal pressure in the cubital tunnel does not begin until after 90° of elbow flexion [147]. During flexion, the humeral trochlea protrudes into the cubital tunnel, causing dynamic morphologic changes in the ulnar nerve [98].

Gelberman and colleagues advocated that traction is responsible for the increase in intraneural pressure found with elbow flexion [35]. Studies using pressure measuring catheters and MRI showed a much larger increase in intraneural pressure compared to extraneural pressure, with no evidence of direct compression, pointing to traction as the major contributor to increased intraneural pressure [119]. Increased elbow flexion in patients with cubital tunnel syndrome influences the intraneural blood flow of the ulnar nerve [123]. Shoulder position changes the ulnar nerve strain around the elbow in living patients with cubital tunnel syndrome [120].

The ulnar nerve requires over 2 cm of unimpeded movement both at the elbow and wrist to perform full motions of the upper extremity involving the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and fingers [93]. With elbow flexion, the ulnar nerve did not move appreciably in the distal–proximal direction directly at the cubital tunnel, but maximal excursion was in the fatty region proximal to the elbow [97]. Ulnar nerve gliding was most severe during passive wrist movement in elbow flexion and forearm supination [129]. The presence or cross-sectional area of an anconeus epitrochlearis muscle does not correlate with the area of the ulnar nerve or cubital tunnel with the elbow in extension [72].

Diagnostic Localization

Diagnosis is made by clinical history and physical examination, with adjunct electrophysiology and imaging as needed [23]. In some patients, subluxation or dislocation of the ulnar nerve during elbow flexion can be palpated and may be associated with increased symptoms [23]. Ulnar nerve mobility may be associated with dislocation of the medial head of the triceps [23]. However, ulnar nerve instability does not appear to be associated with elbow symptoms in the general population [157].

Ultrasonography: Sensitivity for diagnosing ulnar neuropathy at the elbow is 46% to 100%, and specificity is 43% to 97% [23]. Ultrasonography demonstrates hypoechoic, enlarged nerve fascicles [23].

MRI: Sensitivity for diagnosing ulnar neuropathy at the elbow is as high as 95%, and specificity is 80% [23]. MRI demonstrates enlarged, T2-hyperintense nerve lesions proximal to a point of compression with distal muscle atrophy [23].

Classification

Dellon's Classification: This system determines the preoperative status of patients with severe cubital tunnel syndrome [130]. In studies focusing on severe cases, patient selection is based specifically on Dellon's Grade 3, which denotes severe syndrome [130].

Bishop Scoring System: Postoperative clinical outcomes for patients with severe cubital tunnel syndrome are assessed using the Bishop scoring system [130].

Modified Gilligan Grading (MGG): Preoperative and postoperative MGG scores are recorded for patients undergoing minimally invasive in situ cubital tunnel decompression [53]. The preoperative distribution included 20 patients with IIa (65%), 6 with IIb (19%), and 5 with III (16%) [53]. Postoperatively, the distribution shifted to include 26 patients with 0 (84%), 2 with IIa (6.5%), 1 with IIb (3%), and 2 with III (6.5%) [53].

Ulnar Nerve Subluxation Classification: This study is the first to classify ulnar nerve subluxation after endoscopic cubital tunnel release [13]. A guideline for the ensuing treatment of ulnar nerve subluxation after endoscopic cubital tunnel release was described [13].

Animal Model Classifications: In a rat model of ulnar nerve transposition, a 4-part classification assessed nerve health, ranging from 4 (normal nerve) to 1 (abnormal axons in 100% CSA) [118]. A separate 3-part classification assessed perineural scar formation, ranging from 3 (scar completely encasing nerve) to 1 (no scar) [118].

Other Considerations: Definitions for the degree of ulnar nerve instability at the elbow are not uniformly agreed upon [59]. Further development of a classification system for ulnar nerve instability may be warranted to standardize treatment [59].

Clinical Presentation

Symptoms and Signs

Patients with cubital tunnel syndrome typically present with worsening sensory numbness of the hand and digits in an ulnar distribution [23]. While pain is not a common symptom, an aching pain localized to the elbow or proximal forearm may be reported [23]. Patients may also present with numbness or paraesthesia in the hand, along with a burning pain around the medial epicondyle [54]. Symptoms may be worse at night [54]. As the disease progresses, patients may develop weakness or clumsiness of the hand [54], progressing to motor weakness of the hypothenar musculature and clawing of the hand due to loss of intrinsic musculature [23]. Clinical manifestations include dysesthesias in the small finger and ulnar side of the ring finger exacerbated by prolonged elbow flexion [63]. More advanced findings include intrinsic muscle weakness of the hand, hypothenar wasting, and resulting functional impairment [63]. Men with cubital tunnel syndrome are more likely to present with muscle atrophy than women [75]. Patients with instability of the ulnar nerve may report a snapping sensation over the medial side of the elbow, with or without typical sensory or motor changes [54]. Cubital tunnel decompression is associated with prior trauma to the anatomic site [39]. Carpal tunnel and cubital tunnel syndrome requiring surgery is more common in deprived patients and occurs at an earlier age [82].

Physical Examination

The diagnosis is made by clinical history and physical examination, with adjunct electrophysiology and imaging as needed [23]. A detailed ulnar nerve examination should be performed with particular attention to the presence or absence of sensation in the distribution of the dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve [23]. If sensation is diminished in the dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve territory, the localization is proximal to this nerve and is likely within the cubital tunnel [23]. Clinical examination may elicit reduced sensation in the ulnar nerve distribution and atrophy of the first dorsal interosseous muscle [54]. Ulnar nerve mobility may also be associated with dislocation of the medial head of the triceps [23]. If significant ulnar nerve instability is present, ranging the elbow while palpating the ulnar nerve over the cubital tunnel will demonstrate subluxation or dislocation of the nerve [54]. Other clinical tests that can help with the diagnosis include Tinel sign over the ulnar nerve in the cubital tunnel, Froment sign, and Wartenberg sign [54]. The scratch collapse test may be a reliable physical examination technique for localizing the point of maximal nerve compression in patients with cubital tunnel syndrome [86]. In a series of 64 patients, the scratch collapse test was positive in 44 patients, localizing compression to Osborne’s band [86].

Diagnostic Testing

Clinical evaluation is paramount in the diagnosis of cubital tunnel syndrome because electrodiagnostic testing often is not sufficiently sensitive to detect changes associated with the syndrome [16]. Most clinicians order preoperative tests before offering surgery for cubital tunnel syndrome, but only 6% order both EDX and ultrasound as per expert consensus [17]. Electrodiagnostic studies can be useful in detailing the severity of the compression and confirming the level of the compromise [54]. Dynamic sonography is useful to document the presence of ulnar nerve instability [54]. Dynamic sonography is the modality of choice to differentiate between snapping due to ulnar nerve dislocation versus the “snapping triceps syndrome” [54]. Ultrasonography sensitivity for diagnosing ulnar neuropathy at the elbow ranges from 46% to 100%, and specificity ranges from 43% to 97% [23]. Plain radiographs of the elbow can define the bony architecture and may help identify masses, erosions, arthritis, and previous trauma [54]. Electrodiagnostic severity does not predict short- to midterm outcomes of cubital tunnel release surgery [24]. Patient-reported preoperative disease severity may predict the expected postoperative change in ulnar nerve functional improvement [24]. Patients who underwent cubital tunnel release had a significant short-term improvement in their QuickDASH scores, regardless of EDX diagnosis [76].

Investigations

Clinical Examination and History

The diagnosis of cubital tunnel syndrome relies on clinical history and physical examination, supplemented by adjunct electrophysiology and imaging as needed [23]. Patients typically present with worsening sensory numbness of the hand and digits in an ulnar distribution, progressing to motor weakness of the hypothenar musculature and clawing of the hand [23]. An aching pain localized to the elbow or proximal forearm may be reported, although pain is not a common symptom of cubital tunnel syndrome [23]. A detailed ulnar nerve examination assesses sensation in the distribution of the dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve to localize the lesion proximal to the wrist if sensation is diminished [23]. If sensation is preserved in the dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve territory, the lesion may be localized to Guyon canal in the wrist [23]. Subluxation or dislocation of the ulnar nerve during elbow flexion can be palpated and may be associated with increased symptoms [23]. Identification of dislocating structures, such as the medial head of the triceps, is important as it may affect surgical decision making [23].

Electrodiagnostic Studies

Electrophysiology is helpful to ensure proper diagnosis and targeted treatment [23]. Most clinicians order preoperative tests before offering surgery for cubital tunnel syndrome, but only 6% order both electrodiagnostic studies (EDX) and ultrasound as per expert consensus [17]. Electrodiagnostic severity (EDS) may not have prognostic value for patients undergoing cubital tunnel decompression [24]. A positive association was found between the EDX severity and the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the ulnar nerve on diagnostic ultrasound at the cubital tunnel [155]. Ulnar motor nerve conduction velocities improved in 61% of arms at follow-up after simple decompression [15]. At 6 months post-endoscopic neurolysis, EMG analysis showed no residual compression and good release of the ulnar nerve in all cases [142].

Imaging

Ultrasonography: Sensitivity for diagnosing ulnar neuropathy at the elbow is reported between 46% and 100%, with specificity between 43% and 97% [23]. Ultrasonography can demonstrate hypoechoic, enlarged nerve fascicles [23]. Ultrasound scans can be used to evaluate for compression of the ulnar nerve by accessory structures, such as an accessory muscle [136].

MRI: Sensitivity for diagnosing ulnar neuropathy at the elbow is as high as 95%, with specificity of 80% [23]. MRI can demonstrate enlarged, T2-hyperintense nerve lesions proximal to a point of compression with distal muscle atrophy [23]. MRI is an effective diagnostic modality for identifying primary synovial chondromatosis as a causative factor of cubital tunnel syndrome [122].

Plain radiography: Radiographs may not show a tophus compressing the ulnar nerve at the distal cubital tunnel [133].

Other Considerations: The presence or cross-sectional area of the anconeus epitrochlearis muscle (AEM) does not correlate with the area of the ulnar nerve or cubital tunnel with the elbow in extension [72]. The reduction of the cross-sectional area of the ulnar nerve is small even years after decompression [156]. Patients who undergo cubital tunnel release are 11.5 times more likely to undergo carpal tunnel release [4].

Treatment

Non-Operative

Conservative management for cubital tunnel syndrome includes activity modification, anti-inflammatory medications, and therapy [23]. While most clinicians order preoperative tests before offering surgery, only 6% order both electrodiagnostic studies and ultrasound as per expert consensus [17].

Operative

Indications: Anterior transposition should be considered in patients where ulnar nerve subluxation or dislocation is apparent and reproducible during elbow flexion on physical examination [23]. In patients with ulnar neuropathy and no evidence of active subluxation, in situ decompression is feasible and cost-effective [23].

Surgical Approach / Technique: The most commonly utilized techniques for ulnar nerve surgery within the cubital tunnel include in situ decompression and anterior transposition [23]. Anterior transposition can be performed subcutaneously, intramuscularly, or in a submuscular fashion [23]. Most surgeons use more than one operative procedure, with selection influenced by patient factors and surgeon preference [37]. The mini-invasive endoscopic cubital tunnel release is a safe procedure in the hands of the experienced surgeon and a reliable alternative to the conventional open release in uncomplicated cases [27]. This endoscopic approach facilitates inspection of the ulnar nerve so that selective release of the tissue that compresses the nerve can readily be performed [30]. A 4-cm open incision allowed visualization of approximately 9 cm proximal and 9 cm distal to the medial epicondyle, which was equivalent to the 2-cm endoscopic technique for cubital tunnel release [57]. All-arthroscopic ulnar nerve release and subcutaneous transposition is safe and allows complete release and maximum protection of the ulnar nerve while reducing surgical scars, relieving postoperative pain, and providing a fast recovery time [134]. Arthroscopic ulnar nerve decompression appears to be a useful procedure for treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome at the time of elbow arthroscopic debridement arthroplasty [55]. The authors describe a 2-stage local anesthetic injection method that safely introduces local anesthetic within the cubital tunnel, achieving comfort, sufficient visualization, and the ability to decompress multiple compression sites through a minimal incision [96].

Pain Management: Decompression of the ulnar nerve under local anaesthetic is a reliable procedure, which is well tolerated by the majority of patients [124]. The use of local anesthesia for cubital tunnel decompression leads to improved patient safety, convenience, and economic benefits while providing equivalent patient outcomes compared to general anesthesia in the short to medium term [106]. Good pain control can be achieved during all steps of the procedure when using wide-awake surgery with local anaesthesia for ulnar nerve decompression and medial epicondylectomy [132].

Other Considerations: In cases of idiopathic non-traumatic ulnar nerve compression at the cubital tunnel, both simple neurolysis and transposition are effective in improving clinical outcome [100]. A recent Cochrane review demonstrated no difference in symptom severity scores at follow-up (6 and 12 months) between in situ decompression and anterior transposition techniques [23]. Current evidence suggests that the different surgical methods to treat ulnar neuropathy at the elbow do not differ in their clinical outcomes [35]. Lower reimbursement for endoscopic cubital tunnel release is likely related to lack of a dedicated current procedural terminology code [58].

Revision: Outcomes for revision surgery are poorer than primary procedures [35]. The risk of revision cubital tunnel release was low [20]. Anterior transposition is commonly used for revision cases but no literature is available to support this practice [35]. In patients with recurrent symptoms, a significant proportion (77%) can experience either motor and/or sensory improvement, with 23% achieving complete recovery from symptoms at final follow-up after revision cubital tunnel decompression [23]. Recurrent or persistent complaints of cubital tunnel syndrome do not necessarily require an anterior transposition [154]. Neurolysis, i.e. excision of any scars or scarred epineurium around the nerve without intraneural neurolysis, over a sufficiently long distance is sufficient for recurrent cases [154]. Revision surgery should be performed under general anaesthetic or a regional brachial plexus block with a proximal fascial block to cover the intercostobrachial nerve, terminal medial brachial cutaneous nerve branches and the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve [64]. The original incision site is extended proximally and distally to allow exposure of the ulnar nerve in tissues that are not scarred from the previous surgery during revision [64]. Dissecting in a proximal to distal direction along the ulnar nerve during neurolysis avoids damage to side branches [64]. The motor branches to the flexor carpi ulnaris must be identified and protected during revision surgery [64]. The elbow should be cycled through a full range of motion to determine any deep tether points prior to completing a circumferential neurolysis [64]. The distal dissection should extend between the two heads of the flexor carpi ulnaris and any constricting fascial bands must be released [64]. Proximally the nerve should be traced to the medial intermuscular septum hiatus, and release of the arcade of Struthers is usually necessary [64].

Complications

General Complication Rates: The short-term complication rate for cubital tunnel surgery is 5.6% [34]. Overall secondary surgery rates are reported at 5.7% [66], while overall revision surgery rates stand at 4.7% [90]. Revision rates vary by technique: ulnar nerve transposition carries a 7.8% revision rate, compared to 1.8% for in situ cubital tunnel release [90]. Consequently, ulnar nerve transposition is associated with increased rates of both complication and revision surgery compared to in situ release [90]. In idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome, the overall revision rate is 2.8%, with no significant difference between in situ decompression and anterior transposition [164]. The incidence of failure requiring ipsilateral revision surgery after cubital tunnel release was 1.4% during one study period [22], and the risk of revision within 3 years is low [20]. Rates of revision surgery following cubital tunnel release with transposition are generally low, with no major differences among different types of surgical transposition [60].

Specific Complications by Technique: The most common complications following in situ cubital tunnel release are ulnar nerve instability (1.3%), persistent or recurrent cubital tunnel syndrome (0.9%), and infection (0.9%) [90]. In contrast, the most common complication following ulnar nerve transposition is persistent or recurrent cubital tunnel syndrome (7.8%) [90]. Reported complication rates are 3% for in situ decompression and up to 14% for transposition [23]. Specific complications from both in situ decompression and transposition include ulnar instability, infection, and medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve injury [23]. Secondary surgery rates are higher in patients undergoing anterior transposition (11.1%) than in situ release (2.5%) [23], and generally higher for ulnar nerve transposition than in situ release [66]. Secondary surgery rates are also higher for patients with prior elbow trauma [66]. Postoperative infections occur in approximately 2.17% of Medicare cases following cubital tunnel release [161]. In a study of Dellon's anterior submuscular transposition, three minor postoperative complications (3.5%) were found, including two hematomas and one case of elbow stiffness [115]. Symptoms recurred at a rate of 3.6% after endoscopic cubital tunnel release [28]. Postoperative results and complications for concomitant endoscopic carpal and cubital tunnel release are comparable to these procedures performed alone [9], and endoscopic cubital tunnel decompression is associated with minimal complications [19].

Revision Surgery Outcomes and Factors: Results of revision surgery for recurrent or persistent cubital tunnel syndrome are less predictable and satisfying than primary surgery [68]. However, revision cubital tunnel surgery provides average functional outcomes [74], with transposition surgery being the most common index surgery performed in revision cases [74]. In patients with recurrent symptoms, 77% can experience either motor and/or sensory improvement after revision cubital tunnel decompression [23], and 23% achieve complete recovery from symptoms at final follow-up [23]. Improvements in pain and paresthesias are noted in approximately 75% of patients after revision procedures for failed cubital tunnel syndrome [107]. Revision surgery was required in 19% (44 of 231) of in situ decompressions performed during a specific study period [108]. Predictors of revision surgery after in situ decompression include a history of elbow fracture or dislocation (odds ratio 7.1) and McGowan stage I disease (odds ratio 3.2) [108]. Concurrent surgery with in situ decompression is protective against revision surgery, with an odds ratio of 0.19 [108]. In idiopathic cases, revision surgery was required in 7 cases (3.2%) following in situ ulnar nerve decompression [50]. Five limbs (7%) with persistent symptoms after in situ decompression were treated successfully with anterior submuscular transposition [110]. Failure rates for cubital tunnel release range from 3% to 35% depending on the severity of symptoms before surgery [102]. Failure can be due to incorrect diagnosis, inadequate surgical decompression, and postoperative biologic complications such as perineural fibrosis [102].

Infection and Prophylaxis: Preoperative antibiotics do not significantly decrease the risk for postoperative infections in patients undergoing uncomplicated ulnar nerve releases at the elbow [171]. This lack of benefit holds regardless of patient comorbidities [171].

Other Considerations: Poor outcomes and unnecessary revision surgeries for cubital tunnel syndrome can be avoided with intraoperative attention to 7 structures distal to the medial epicondyle [169]. Knowledge of possible compression sites of the ulnar nerve is important to avoid complications and decrease postoperative recurrence [162]. Delayed-onset ulnar neuritis after release of elbow contracture can have its incidence and severity reduced by limited open ulnar nerve decompression or transposition [167].

Recovery

Light activity (weeks): The evidence provided does not specify a defined week range for light activity, desk work, driving, or light activities of daily living.

Full activity (months): The evidence provided does not specify a defined month range for the return to manual work, sport, or full range of motion and strength.

Complete recovery / outcome plateau (months): The evidence provided does not specify a defined month range for the stabilization of pain, strength, or final functional outcomes.

Rehabilitation protocol: The evidence provided does not specify a rehabilitation protocol, including physical therapy phasing, immobilisation duration, weight-bearing or range-of-motion progression, or sling and brace removal timing.

Functional milestones: Patient-reported outcomes following surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome are generally good but are affected by preoperative symptom severity [36]. Patient-reported preoperative disease severity may predict the expected postoperative change in ulnar nerve functional improvement, whereas electrodiagnostic severity may not have prognostic value for patients undergoing cubital tunnel decompression [24]. In the third month after surgery, differences in patient-rated function following in situ decompression and ulnar nerve transposition have normalized [160]. Recovery of ulnar nerve function was good in all cases in the second group [163].

Other Considerations: Ulnar motor nerve conduction velocities improved in 61% of arms at follow-up [15]. Although the overall patient experience after cubital tunnel surgery was positive, participants noted a need for providing improved educational resources and counseling before surgery [56]. For patients with severe symptoms, relief may proceed to a more gradual improvement in sensory or motor dysfunction, which, depending on the degree of severity, may occur over weeks, months, or even years [42]. Many patients with severe symptoms achieve substantial improvement, albeit sometimes after a prolonged convalescence [42]. At mid-term follow-up, 92% of overhead athletes returned to sport after ulnar nerve transposition, with 62% resuming their previous level of performance [145]. At short- to mid-term follow up, 85% of overhead or throwing athletes were able to return to sporting activity after ulnar nerve transposition, with 72% resuming their previous level of performance [149]. Submuscular ulnar nerve transposition for cubital tunnel syndrome provides a reliable rate of return to full active duty work in military personnel with good patient satisfaction and minimal complications [125]. Anterior interosseous nerve transfer, along with cubital and ulnar tunnel release, results in sustained clinical and electrophysiological improvements in patients with severe chronic ulnar nerve compression [165]. Decompressing the patient's deep motor branch of the ulnar nerve allowed for spontaneous nerve recovery and reinnervation of his ulnar nerve innervated intrinsic muscles [114].

Key Evidence

• [L3] Improvement in pain and function after cubital tunnel release may be associated with an improvement in symptoms both within and outside the ulnar nerve distribution. [1] (10.1007/s11552-014-9688-9)
• [L3] The majority of patients undergoing revision cubital tunnel release and submuscular transposition have relief of symptoms. [3] (10.1016/j.jhsg.2025.100810)
• [L4] Patients who undergo carpal tunnel release are 15 times more likely to undergo cubital tunnel release than the general population, and those who undergo cubital tunnel release are 11.5 times more likely to undergo carpal tunnel release. [4] (10.1177/1753193420980983)
• [Paper] Cubital tunnel release appears to carry a higher liability than other procedures within hand surgery such as carpal tunnel release. [5] (10.1177/15589447251369033)
• [L1] Because of the low power of the included studies, further investigations with a larger patient population, longer follow-up, better documentation of endoscopic devices/techniques used, and criteria for surgical intervention are needed to better characterize the role of endoscopic cubital tunnel release. [6] (10.1097/prs.0000000000004112)
• [L3] Cubital tunnel release resulted in clinically relevant relief of hand symptoms. [8] (10.1177/17531934241275487)
• [L4] Postoperative results and complications are comparable to endoscopic carpal and cubital tunnel releases performed alone. [9] (10.1007/s11552-013-9552-3)
• [L4] The results of this study support our recommendation of cubital tunnel release with endoscopic assistance as a safe and reliable technique for the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome, especially in patients with mild to moderate symptoms. [10] (10.1053/jhsu.1999.jhsu25a0021)
• [L4] To our knowledge, this is the first study to classify ulnar nerve subluxation after endoscopic cubital tunnel release and describe a guideline for ensuing treatment. [13] (10.1016/j.jhsg.2020.05.001)
• [L4] Ulnar motor nerve conduction velocities improved in 61% of arms at follow-up. [15] (10.1016/j.main.2004.11.004)
• [L4] Clinical evaluation is paramount in the diagnosis of cubital tunnel syndrome because electrodiagnostic testing often is not sufficiently sensitive to detect changes associated with the syndrome. [16] (10.1016/j.hcl.2013.08.019)
• [L4] Most clinicians order preoperative tests before offering surgery for cubital tunnel syndrome, but only 6% order both EDX and ultrasound as per expert consensus. [17] (10.1177/17531934261434155)
• [L4] Surgery was effective in treating cubital tunnel syndrome with more than 90% of patients cured or showing improvement. [18] (10.1016/j.otsr.2014.03.009)
• [L5] Endoscopic cubital tunnel decompression has gained popularity with early short-term results being encouraging, showing satisfactory outcomes and minimal complications. [19] (10.1136/jisakos-2020-000506)
• [L3] The risk of revision cubital tunnel release was low. [20] (10.1097/corr.0000000000002629)
• [L4] The incidence of failure requiring ipsilateral revision surgery after cubital tunnel release remained steadily low (1.4%) during the study period. [22] (10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.028)
• [L3] Patient-reported preoperative disease severity may predict the expected postoperative change in ulnar nerve functional improvement, and EDS may not have prognostic value for patients undergoing cubital tunnel decompression. [24] (10.1016/j.jse.2024.01.055)
• [L4] We conclude that the mini-invasive endoscopic cubital tunnel release is a safe procedure in the hands of the experienced surgeon and a reliable alternative to the conventional open release in the uncomplicated cases of cubital tunnel syndrome. [27] (10.1016/s0363-5023(03)80438-0)
• [L4] Symptoms recurred at a rate of 3.6% after Hoffmann and Siemionow's endoscopic cubital tunnel release, which is comparable to other endoscopic or open techniques. [28] (10.1016/j.jhsg.2020.03.006)
• [L4] The endoscopic approach facilitates inspection of the ulnar nerve so that selective release of the tissue that compresses the nerve can readily be performed. [30] (10.1177/1753193408094443)
• [L3] The short-term complication rates of cubital tunnel surgery are low (5.6%), but higher for ulnar nerve transposition (9.6%) than in situ cubital tunnel release (3.6%). [34] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.033)
• [L4] [35] (10.1016/j.hcl.2013.04.013)
• [L3] The patient-reported outcome of surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome is good but is affected by preoperative symptom severity. [36] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.05.014)
• [L4] Most surgeons use more than one operative procedure in their treatment of patients with cubital tunnel syndrome and the selection of the operative procedure is influenced by patient factors and surgeon preference. [37] (10.1007/s11552-008-9133-z)
• [L4] Cubital tunnel decompression is associated with prior trauma to the anatomic site. [39] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.07.009)
• [L5] [42] (10.1097/corr.0000000000002680)
• [L5] Endoscopic cubital tunnel release is a minimally invasive, simple, and fast procedure that allows for smaller incisions, faster recovery, and minimal scarring, with safety and efficacy shown to be comparable to more invasive procedures. [48] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.07.030)
• [L3] [50] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.12.012)
• [L4] [53] (10.1097/bth.0000000000000113)
• [L4] [54] (10.1097/bth.0000000000000030)
• [L4] This technique appears to be a useful procedure for treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome at the time of elbow arthroscopic debridement arthroplasty. [55] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.01.003)
• [L4] Although the overall patient experience after cubital tunnel surgery was positive, participants noted that there is a need for providing improved educational resources and counseling before surgery. [56] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.03.012)
• [L5] A 4-cm open incision allowed visualization of approximately 9 cm proximal and 9 cm distal to the medial epicondyle, which was equivalent to the 2-cm endoscopic technique for cubital tunnel release. [57] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.10.004)
• [L3] Lower reimbursement is likely related to lack of a dedicated current procedural terminology code for endoscopic cubital tunnel release. [58] (10.1177/1558944716679610)
• [L4] Definitions for the degree of ulnar nerve instability at the elbow are not uniformly agreed upon, and further development of a classification system may be warranted to standardize treatment. [59] (10.1055/s-0038-1665548)
• [L3] The rate of revision surgery following cubital tunnel release with transposition is quite low, and there do not appear to be major differences in the rate of revision among the different types of surgical transposition, indicating that a true subcutaneous transposition may be adequate. [60] (10.1016/j.jhsg.2025.100815)
• [L5] [64] (10.1302/2058-5241.6.200135)
• [L4] The secondary surgery rate after cubital tunnel surgery was 5.7% overall, but higher for patients with prior elbow trauma and for patients undergoing ulnar nerve transposition. [66] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.01.020)
• [L4] Results of revision surgery for recurrent or persistent cubital tunnel syndrome are less predictable and satisfying than primary surgery. [68] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.11.024)
• [L4] With the elbow in extension, the presence or cross-sectional area of an AEM does not correlate with the area of the ulnar nerve or cubital tunnel. [72] (10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.021)
• [L1] Revision cubital tunnel surgery provides average functional outcomes with transposition surgery as the most common index surgery performed. [74] (10.1016/j.otsr.2019.03.020)
• [L4] Men with cubital tunnel syndrome are more likely to present with muscle atrophy than women. [75] (10.1177/1558944716643096)
• [L4] Patients who underwent cubital tunnel release had a significant short-term improvement in their QuickDASH scores, regardless of EDX diagnosis. [76] (10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.08.013)
• [L4] Carpal tunnel and cubital tunnel syndrome requiring surgery is more common in deprived patients and occurs at an earlier age. [82] (10.1177/1753193420939384)
• [L4] [86] (10.1007/s11552-009-9225-4)
• [L4] [90] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.034)
• [L5] The ulnar nerve requires over 2 cm of unimpeded movement both at the elbow and wrist to perform full motions of the upper extremity involving the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and fingers. [93] (10.1053/jhsu.2001.26140)
• [L5] The area within the cubital tunnel decreases beyond 90° of elbow flexion. [94] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.09.014)
• [L4] The authors describe a 2-stage local anesthetic injection method that safely introduces local anesthetic within the cubital tunnel, achieving comfort, sufficient visualization, and the ability to decompress multiple compression sites through a minimal incision. [96] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2022.04.004)
• [L5] With elbow flexion, the ulnar nerve did not move appreciably in the distal–proximal direction directly at the cubital tunnel, but maximal excursion was in the fatty region proximal to the elbow. [97] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.03.016)
• [L5] The humeral trochlea protrudes into the cubital tunnel during elbow flexion, causing dynamic morphologic changes in the ulnar nerve. [98] (10.1016/j.jse.2022.05.026)
• [L4] In cases of idiopathic non-traumatic ulnar nerve compression at the cubital tunnel, both simple neurolysis and transposition are effective in improving clinical outcome. [100] (10.1007/s00701-013-1962-z)
• [L4] [102] (10.1016/j.injury.2019.11.003)
• [Paper] The study advocates for the use of local anesthesia for cubital tunnel decompression as it leads to improved patient safety, convenience, and economic benefits while providing equivalent patient outcomes compared to general anesthesia in the short to medium term. [106] (10.1055/s-0038-1675271)
• [L4] [107] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.03.057)
• [L3] [108] (10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.015)
• [L4] [110] (10.1177/1753193408101467)
• [L4] Decompressing the patient's deep motor branch of the ulnar nerve allowed for spontaneous nerve recovery and reinnervation of his ulnar nerve innervated intrinsic muscles. [114] (10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.02.001)
• [L4] [115] (10.1016/j.main.2015.08.001)
• [L5] [118] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.08.007)
• [L4] [119] (10.1007/s12593-009-0020-9)
• [L4] To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study showing that shoulder position changes the ulnar nerve strain around the elbow in living patients with CubTS. [120] (10.1016/j.jse.2015.01.014)
• [Case_report] MRI is an effective diagnostic modality, and clinicians should be aware of primary synovial chondromatosis as a causative factor of cubital tunnel syndrome. [122] (10.1177/1758573216683396)
• [L3] Increased elbow flexion in patients with CuTS influences the intraneural blood flow of the ulnar nerve. [123] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.06.024)
• [L4] Decompression of the ulnar nerve under local anaesthetic is a reliable procedure, which is well tolerated by the majority of patients. [124] (10.1054/jhsb.2000.0525)
• [L4] Submuscular ulnar nerve transposition for cubital tunnel syndrome provides a reliable rate of return to full active duty work in military personnel with good patient satisfaction and minimal complications. [125] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2004.04.011)
• [L4] Ulnar nerve gliding was most severe during passive wrist movement in elbow flexion and forearm supination. [129] (10.5397/cise.2024.00934)
• [L1] [130] (10.1227/01.neu.0000145854.38234.81)
• [L4] Good pain control can be achieved during all steps of the procedure. [132] (10.1177/17531934241252518)
• [L5] The ulnar nerve was compressed by a tophus at the distal cubital tunnel, which was not shown on radiographs. [133] (10.1016/s0266-7681(96)80066-0)
• [L4] It is safe and allows complete release and maximum protection of the ulnar nerve while reducing surgical scars, relieving postoperative pain, and providing a fast recovery time. [134] (10.1016/j.eats.2024.103253)
• [L5] Subsequent ultrasound scans showed no evidence of compression of the contralateral ulnar nerve by a similar structure. [136] (10.1177/17531934221078685)
• [L4] At 6 months, EMG analysis showed no residual compression and good release of the ulnar nerve in all cases. [142] (10.1016/j.main.2014.10.075)
• [L4] At mid-term follow-up, 92% of overhead athletes returned to sport after ulnar nerve transposition, with 62% resuming their previous level of performance. [145] (10.1016/j.jse.2020.02.001)
• [L5] The author contends that limiting elbow flexion to 90° in the Dellon et al. study was a serious error because maximal pressure in the cubital tunnel does not begin until after 90° flexion. [147] (10.1016/s0363-5023(96)80137-7)
• [L4] At short- to mid-term follow up, 85% of overhead or throwing athletes were able to return to sporting activity after ulnar nerve transposition, with 72% resuming their previous level of performance. [149] (10.1016/j.arthro.2018.10.073)
• [L4] [154] (10.1177/1753193420970022)
• [L2] We found a positive association between the EDX severity and the CSA of the ulnar nerve on diagnostic ultrasound at the cubital tunnel. [155] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2024.12.004)
• [L4] The reduction of the cross-sectional area of the ulnar nerve is small even years after decompression. [156] (10.1177/1753193416635803)
• [L3] Ulnar nerve instability does not appear to be associated with elbow symptoms in the general population. [157] (10.1016/j.jseint.2021.05.005)
• [L2] In the 3rd month after surgery, differences in patient-rated function following in situ decompression and ulnar nerve transposition have normalized. [160] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.06.066)
• [L3] Postoperative infections are uncommon, occurring in approximately 2.17% of Medicare cases following cubital tunnel release. [161] (10.1177/2325967118772799)
• [L5] Knowledge of possible compression sites of the ulnar nerve is important to the surgeon so that complications are avoided and postoperative recurrence is decreased. [162] (10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.004)
• [L4] Recovery of ulnar nerve function was good in all cases in the second group. [163] (10.1016/s1058-2746(98)90181-1)
• [Paper] The overall revision rate for idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome surgery is low (2.8%) with no significant difference between in situ decompression and anterior transposition. [164] (10.1055/s-0039-1694292)
• [L4] Anterior interosseous nerve transfer, along with cubital and ulnar tunnel release, results in sustained clinical and electrophysiological improvements in patients with severe chronic ulnar nerve compression, which encourages its adoption as a standard treatment for severe chronic ulnar nerve compression. [165] (10.1177/17531934251381023)
• [L2] Its incidence and severity can be reduced by limited open ulnar nerve decompression or transposition. [167] (10.1016/j.arthro.2014.03.022)
• [L5] Poor outcomes and unnecessary revision surgeries for cubital tunnel syndrome can be avoided with intraoperative attention to 7 structures distal to the medial epicondyle. [169] (10.1177/1558944718771390)
• [L4] Preoperative antibiotics do not demonstrate benefit for patients undergoing uncomplicated ulnar nerve releases at the elbow and do not significantly decrease the risk for postoperative infections in patients, regardless of patient comorbidities. [171] (10.1177/15589447221107688)

See Also

• Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

References

[1] Prospective Cohort Study of Symptom Resolution outside of the Ulnar Nerve Distribution following Cubital Tunnel Release. HAND. 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s11552-014-9688-9

[3] Efficacy of Submuscular Transposition for Revision Cubital Tunnel Release: Comparative Outcomes Analysis. Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2025.100810

[4] The association between surgery for carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome: analysis of incidence and risk factors within a geographical area. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2021. DOI: 10.1177/1753193420980983

[5] Litigation in Cubital Tunnel Surgery. HAND. 2025. DOI: 10.1177/15589447251369033

[6] Endoscopic versus Open In Situ Cubital Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of 655 Patients. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. 2018. DOI: 10.1097/prs.0000000000004112

[8] Changes in hand function and health state utility after cubital tunnel release using the United Kingdom Hand Registry. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2024. DOI: 10.1177/17531934241275487

[9] Concomitant Endoscopic Carpal and Cubital Tunnel Release: Safety and Efficacy. HAND. 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s11552-013-9552-3

[10] Cubital tunnel release with endoscopic assistance: Results of a new technique. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 1999. DOI: 10.1053/jhsu.1999.jhsu25a0021

[13] Classification and Treatment of Ulnar Nerve Subluxation Following Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release. Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2020.05.001

[15] Intermediate and long-term outcomes following simple decompression of the ulnar nerve at the elbow. Chirurgie de la Main. 2005. DOI: 10.1016/j.main.2004.11.004

[16] Minimal-Incision In Situ Ulnar Nerve Decompression at the Elbow. Hand Clinics. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2013.08.019

[17] Preoperative tests before cubital tunnel decompression in 2025. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2026. DOI: 10.1177/17531934261434155

[18] Cubital tunnel syndrome: Comparative results of a multicenter study of 4 surgical techniques with a mean follow-up of 92 months. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2014.03.009

[19] Endoscopic cubital tunnel decompression: state of the art. Journal of ISAKOS. 2021. DOI: 10.1136/jisakos-2020-000506

[20] What Factors Are Associated With Revision Cubital Tunnel Release Within 3 Years?. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2023. DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000002629

[22] Risk factors for revision surgery following isolated ulnar nerve release at the cubital tunnel: a study of 25,977 cases. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.028

[23] Orthopaedic Knowledge Update 13 Ebook Without Multimedia. Neuropathies, Vascular Conditions: Buerger’s, Raynaud’s; Degenerative Conditions > Upper Extremity Neuropathies > Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.

[24] Electrodiagnostic severity does not predict short- to midterm outcomes of cubital tunnel release surgery. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.01.055

[27] Miniinvasive, endoscopic cubital tunnel release. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2003. DOI: 10.1016/s0363-5023(03)80438-0

[28] Symptom Recurrence After Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release. Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2020.03.006

[30] Endoscopic Anatomical Nerve Observation and Minimally Invasive Management of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2008. DOI: 10.1177/1753193408094443

[34] Complication Rates of Cubital Tunnel Surgery: In situ Cubital Tunnel Release Compared with Ulnar Nerve Transposition. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.033

[35] Ulnar Neuropathy at the Elbow. Hand Clinics. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2013.04.013

[36] Patient-Rated Outcome of Ulnar Nerve Decompression: A Comparison of Endoscopic and Open In Situ Decompression. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.05.014

[37] Selection of Operative Procedures for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. HAND. 2008. DOI: 10.1007/s11552-008-9133-z

[39] Surgical Demographics of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and Cubital Tunnel Syndrome Over 5 Years at a Single Institution. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.07.009

[42] CORR Insights®: What Factors Are Associated With Revision Cubital Tunnel Release Within 3 Years?. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2023. DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000002680

[48] Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.07.030

[50] Predicting Revision Following In Situ Ulnar Nerve Decompression for Patients With Idiopathic Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.12.012

[51] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. COMPRESSIVE NEUROPATHIES OF THE HAND, FOREARM, AND ELBOW > CUBITAL TUNNEL SYNDROME AND TARDY ULNAR NERVE PALSY > IN SITU DECOMPRESSION OF THE ULNAR NERVE.

[53] Minimally Invasive In Situ Cubital Tunnel Decompression. Techniques in Hand & Upper Extremity Surgery. 2016. DOI: 10.1097/bth.0000000000000113

[54] Endoscopic Ulnar Nerve Release and Transposition. Techniques in Hand & Upper Extremity Surgery. 2014. DOI: 10.1097/bth.0000000000000030

[55] Arthroscopic Ulnar Nerve Decompression in the Setting of Elbow Osteoarthritis. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.01.003

[56] Factors Influencing Patient Experience After Cubital Tunnel Syndrome Surgery. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.03.012

[57] Visualization During Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital Tunnel Decompression: A Cadaveric Study. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.10.004

[58] Trends in Open and Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release in the Medicare Patient Population. HAND. 2016. DOI: 10.1177/1558944716679610

[59] Decision-Making Factors for Ulnar Nerve Transposition in Cubital Tunnel Surgery. Journal of Wrist Surgery. 2018. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1665548

[60] Cubital Tunnel Revision After Transposition: A Single Center Experience. Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2025.100815

[63] Orthopaedic Knowledge Update 13 Ebook Without Multimedia. Elbow Degenerative Conditions and Nerve Disorders > Nerve Disorders > Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.

[64] The management of failed cubital tunnel decompression. EFORT Open Reviews. 2021. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200135

[65] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. COMPRESSIVE NEUROPATHIES OF THE HAND, FOREARM, AND ELBOW > CUBITAL TUNNEL SYNDROME AND TARDY ULNAR NERVE PALSY.

[66] Rates of Complications and Secondary Surgeries After In Situ Cubital Tunnel Release Compared With Ulnar Nerve Transposition: A Retrospective Review. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.01.020

[68] Recurrent or Persistent Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.11.024

[72] Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging analysis of the cross-sectional areas of the anconeus epitrochlearis muscle, cubital tunnel, and ulnar nerve with the elbow in extension in patients with and without ulnar neuropathy. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.021

[74] Revision surgery for refractory cubital tunnel syndrome: A systematic review. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.03.020

[75] Muscle Atrophy at Presentation of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. HAND. 2016. DOI: 10.1177/1558944716643096

[76] Electrodiagnostic Testing Predicts Postdecompression Outcomes in Patients With Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.08.013

[82] The effect of social deprivation on the incidence rate of carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome surgery. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1753193420939384

[86] Scratch Collapse Test Localizes Osborne's Band as the Point of Maximal Nerve Compression in Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. HAND. 2009. DOI: 10.1007/s11552-009-9225-4

[90] Examining Reduced Regeneration Associated with Increasing Length in Nerve Autografts. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.034

[93] Ulnar nerve excursion and strain at the elbow and wrist associated with upper extremity motion. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2001. DOI: 10.1053/jhsu.2001.26140

[94] Morphology of the Cubital Tunnel: An Anatomical and Biomechanical Study With Implications for Treatment of Ulnar Nerve Compression. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.09.014

[96] Wide Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2022.04.004

[97] Laxity of the Ulnar Nerve During Elbow Flexion and Extension. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.03.016

[98] Dynamic analysis of the ulnar nerve and cubital tunnel morphology using ultrasonography: a cadaveric study. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2022.05.026

[100] Comparative outcomes of ulnar nerve transposition versus neurolysis in patients with entrapment neuropathy at the cubital tunnel: a 20-year analysis. Acta Neurochirurgica. 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-013-1962-z

[102] Outcomes of revision neurolysis of the ulnar nerve and ulnar groove plasty for persistent and recurrent cubital tunnel syndrome—A retrospective study of 21 cases. Injury. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.11.003

[106] Cubital Tunnel Decompression: Equivalent Outcome Scores when Procedure Performed with Local versus General Anesthetic. Journal of Hand and Microsurgery. 2019. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1675271

[107] The Management of Persistent and Recurrent Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.03.057

[108] Predictors of surgical revision after in situ decompression of the ulnar nerve. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.015

[110] Incidence of Re-Operation and Subjective Outcome Following in Situ Decompression of the Ulnar Nerve at the Cubital Tunnel. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2009. DOI: 10.1177/1753193408101467

[114] Posttraumatic Compressive Neuropathy of the Deep Motor Branch of the Ulnar Nerve Caused by Heterotopic Ossification. Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.02.001

[115] Dellon's anterior submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve: Retrospective study of 82 operated patients with 11.5 years’ follow-up. Chirurgie de la Main. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.main.2015.08.001

[118] Submuscular Versus Subcutaneous Anterior Ulnar Nerve Transposition: A Rat Histologic Study. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.08.007

[119] Cubital tunnel syndrome – Review of current literature on causes, diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Hand and Microsurgery. 2009. DOI: 10.1007/s12593-009-0020-9

[120] Shoulder position increases ulnar nerve strain at the elbow of patients with cubital tunnel syndrome. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.01.014

[122] Ulnar nerve palsy caused by synovial protrusion in synovial chondromatosis of the elbow: a case report and literature review. Shoulder & Elbow. 2016. DOI: 10.1177/1758573216683396

[123] Dynamic Evaluation of Intraneural Microvascularity of the Ulnar Nerve Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography in Patients With Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.06.024

[124] Ulnar Nerve Decompression in the Cubital Canal using Local Anaesthesia. Journal of Hand Surgery. 2001. DOI: 10.1054/jhsb.2000.0525

[125] Functional outcomes in young, active duty, military personnel after submuscular ulnar nerve transposition. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2004. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2004.04.011

[129] Biomechanical analysis of ulnar nerve gliding and elongation: implications for nonsurgical ulnar nerve release in cubital tunnel syndrome. Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow. 2025. DOI: 10.5397/cise.2024.00934

[130] Simple Decompression versus Anterior Submuscular Transposition of the Ulnar Nerve in Severe Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: A Prospective Randomized Study. Neurosurgery. 2005. DOI: 10.1227/01.neu.0000145854.38234.81

[132] Wide-awake surgery using local anaesthesia with adrenaline for ulnar nerve decompression and medial epicondylectomy. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2024. DOI: 10.1177/17531934241252518

[133] Cubital Tunnel Syndrome Caused by Tophaceous Gout. Journal of Hand Surgery. 1996. DOI: 10.1016/s0266-7681(96)80066-0

[134] All‐Arthroscopic Ulnar Nerve Release and Subcutaneous Transposition. Arthroscopy Techniques. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.eats.2024.103253

[136] Re: Wright H, Fahmy M, Bourke G. An accessory muscle as the possible cause of ulnar nerve compression proximal to the cubital canal: a case report. J Hand Surg Eur. 2021, 46: 1114–5. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2022. DOI: 10.1177/17531934221078685

[142] Syndrome de compression du nerf ulnaire au coude traité par neurolyse endoscopique : à propos de 17 cas. Chirurgie de la Main. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.main.2014.10.075

[145] Return to sporting activity after ulnar nerve transposition for isolated neuritis in competitive overhead athletes. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.02.001

[147] Intraneural ulnar nerve pressure in cubital tunnel decompression surgery. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 1996. DOI: 10.1016/s0363-5023(96)80137-7

[149] Return to Sporting Activity After Ulnar Nerve Transposition for Isolated Neuritis in Competitive Overhead Athletes. Arthroscopy. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.10.073

[154] Challenging the dogma: anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve is indicated in recurrent cubital tunnel syndrome. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1753193420970022

[155] Association of Ultrasound and Electrodiagnostic Studies in Patients Evaluated for Ulnar Neuropathy. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2024.12.004

[156] Cross-sectional area of the ulnar nerve after decompression at the cubital tunnel. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2016. DOI: 10.1177/1753193416635803

[157] The ultrasonographic assessment of the morphologic changes in the ulnar nerve at the cubital tunnel in Japanese volunteers: relationship between dynamic ulnar nerve instability and clinical symptoms. JSES International. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2021.05.005

[160] Comparative Morbidity of Cubital Tunnel Surgeries: A Prospective Cohort Study. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.06.066

[161] Patient-Related Risk Factors for Infection Following Ulnar Nerve Release at the Cubital Tunnel: An Analysis of 15,188 Cases. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018. DOI: 10.1177/2325967118772799

[162] Regional anatomic structures of the elbow that may potentially compress the ulnar nerve. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.004

[163] Release of ulnar nerve compression at the elbow through a transverse incision. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 1998. DOI: 10.1016/s1058-2746(98)90181-1

[164] Rates of Revision Surgery following In Situ Decompression versus Anterior Transposition for the Treatment of Idiopathic Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. Journal of Hand and Microsurgery. 2020. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1694292

[165] Anterior interosseous nerve transfer combined with cubital and ulnar tunnel release for severe ulnar nerve compression. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2025. DOI: 10.1177/17531934251381023

[167] Delayed‐Onset Ulnar Neuritis After Release of Elbow Contracture: Preventive Strategies Derived From a Study of 563 Cases. Arthroscopy. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.03.022

[169] The 7 Structures Distal to the Elbow That Are Critical to Successful Anterior Transposition of the Ulnar Nerve. HAND. 2018. DOI: 10.1177/1558944718771390

[171] The Effectiveness of Preoperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Ulnar Nerve Release at the Cubital Tunnel. HAND. 2022. DOI: 10.1177/15589447221107688