Table 4.

Results of surgical repair for cubital tunnel syndrome

Author	Patients (n)/Studies	Procedure	Results	Commentary
Bartels et al (2005)41	152/RCT with 12 mths FU	SD vs AST	Excellent and good results in 49/75 in SD vs 54/77 in AST	Lower complication rate with simple decompression (9.6 vs 31%, RR, 0.32)
Zlowodzki et al (2006)38	261 / 4 RCT studies with 21 mths FU	SD vs transposition (AST – 2 studies; SMT – 2 studies)	No significant difference in clinical outcomes or motor nerve conduction tests
Macadam et al (2008)40	449 SD, 342 AST, 115 SMT/ 10 studies	SD vs transposition (anterior/submuscular)	No significant difference in clinical outcomes	Trend toward a better outcome with transposition
Liu et al (2015)39	605 /2 RCT + 7 observational studies	Subcutaneous vs SMT	No significant differences in outcomes in either type of studies	Less adverse events in subcutaneous group. (RR, 0.54; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.87; p = 0.01)

FU, follow-up; AST, anterior subcutaenous transposition; RCT, randomised controlled trial; SD, simple decompression; SMT, submuscular decompression; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval