Cargando…
Protocol for Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release (EVOCU): an open randomized controlled trial: EVOCU trial: Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release
BACKGROUND: Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common entrapment neuropathy of the upper extremity. Surgical decompression of the ulnar nerve aims to improve complaints and prevent permanent damage to the nerve. Open and endoscopic release of the cubital tunnel are both used in common practi...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9945684/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36810082 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06234-y |
_version_ | 1784892188158590976 |
---|---|
author | Sprangers, Philippe N. van der Heijden, Egberta P. A. |
author_facet | Sprangers, Philippe N. van der Heijden, Egberta P. A. |
author_sort | Sprangers, Philippe N. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common entrapment neuropathy of the upper extremity. Surgical decompression of the ulnar nerve aims to improve complaints and prevent permanent damage to the nerve. Open and endoscopic release of the cubital tunnel are both used in common practice, but none has proven to be superior. This study assesses patient reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs respectively), in addition to objective outcomes of both techniques. METHODS: A prospective single-center open randomized non-inferiority trial will take place at the Plastic Surgery Department in the Jeroen Bosch Hospital, the Netherlands. 160 patients with cubital tunnel syndrome will be included. Patients are allocated to endoscopic or open cubital tunnel release by randomization. The surgeon and patients are not blinded for treatment allocation. The follow-up time will take 18 months. DISCUSSION: Currently, the choice for one of the methods is based on surgeon’s preferences and degree of familiarity with a particular technique. It is assumed that the open technique is easier, faster and cheaper. The endoscopic release, however, has better exposure of the nerve and reduces the chance of damaging the nerve and might decrease scar discomfort. PROMs and PREMs have proven potential to improve the quality of care. Better health care experiences are associated with better clinical outcome in self-reported post-surgical questionnaires. Combining subjective measures with objective outcomes, efficacy, patient treatment experience and safety profile could help differentiating between open and endoscopic cubital tunnel release. This could aid clinicians in evidence based choices towards the best surgical approach in patients with cubital tunnel syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered prospectively with the Dutch Trial Registration under NL9556. Universal Trial Number (WHO-UTN) U1111-1267–3059. Registration date 26–06-2021. The URL: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/9556 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9945684 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99456842023-02-23 Protocol for Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release (EVOCU): an open randomized controlled trial: EVOCU trial: Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release Sprangers, Philippe N. van der Heijden, Egberta P. A. BMC Musculoskelet Disord Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common entrapment neuropathy of the upper extremity. Surgical decompression of the ulnar nerve aims to improve complaints and prevent permanent damage to the nerve. Open and endoscopic release of the cubital tunnel are both used in common practice, but none has proven to be superior. This study assesses patient reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs respectively), in addition to objective outcomes of both techniques. METHODS: A prospective single-center open randomized non-inferiority trial will take place at the Plastic Surgery Department in the Jeroen Bosch Hospital, the Netherlands. 160 patients with cubital tunnel syndrome will be included. Patients are allocated to endoscopic or open cubital tunnel release by randomization. The surgeon and patients are not blinded for treatment allocation. The follow-up time will take 18 months. DISCUSSION: Currently, the choice for one of the methods is based on surgeon’s preferences and degree of familiarity with a particular technique. It is assumed that the open technique is easier, faster and cheaper. The endoscopic release, however, has better exposure of the nerve and reduces the chance of damaging the nerve and might decrease scar discomfort. PROMs and PREMs have proven potential to improve the quality of care. Better health care experiences are associated with better clinical outcome in self-reported post-surgical questionnaires. Combining subjective measures with objective outcomes, efficacy, patient treatment experience and safety profile could help differentiating between open and endoscopic cubital tunnel release. This could aid clinicians in evidence based choices towards the best surgical approach in patients with cubital tunnel syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered prospectively with the Dutch Trial Registration under NL9556. Universal Trial Number (WHO-UTN) U1111-1267–3059. Registration date 26–06-2021. The URL: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/9556 BioMed Central 2023-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9945684/ /pubmed/36810082 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06234-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Sprangers, Philippe N. van der Heijden, Egberta P. A. Protocol for Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release (EVOCU): an open randomized controlled trial: EVOCU trial: Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release |
title | Protocol for Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release (EVOCU): an open randomized controlled trial: EVOCU trial: Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release |
title_full | Protocol for Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release (EVOCU): an open randomized controlled trial: EVOCU trial: Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release |
title_fullStr | Protocol for Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release (EVOCU): an open randomized controlled trial: EVOCU trial: Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release |
title_full_unstemmed | Protocol for Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release (EVOCU): an open randomized controlled trial: EVOCU trial: Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release |
title_short | Protocol for Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release (EVOCU): an open randomized controlled trial: EVOCU trial: Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital tunnel release |
title_sort | protocol for endoscopic versus open cubital tunnel release (evocu): an open randomized controlled trial: evocu trial: endoscopic versus open cubital tunnel release |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9945684/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36810082 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06234-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sprangersphilippen protocolforendoscopicversusopencubitaltunnelreleaseevocuanopenrandomizedcontrolledtrialevocutrialendoscopicversusopencubitaltunnelrelease AT vanderheijdenegbertapa protocolforendoscopicversusopencubitaltunnelreleaseevocuanopenrandomizedcontrolledtrialevocutrialendoscopicversusopencubitaltunnelrelease |