Conservative treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome: A systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS) is one of the most common compression neuropathies of the upper extremity. Conservative management of cubital tunnel syndrome is often considered first line therapy for mild or moderate symptoms; however, there is little evidence-based literature to guide physicians in this regard. As such, the objective of this study is to complete a comprehensive literature search of the conservative therapies available for treatment of CuTS. Additionally, we hope to assess the evidence for each therapy so that we can make evidence- based recommendations regarding the type and duration of optimal treatment. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were search using a sensitive search strategy. Eligibility for studies included any studies or conference abstracts in which patients were treated conservatively for primary CuTS. Any form of non-operative treatment was acceptable. A data extraction form was developed to collect all information and outcomes of interest, including study design, level of evidence, number of patients, treatment modalities, follow- up time, patient reported outcomes, and electrophysiological markers. Qualitative and quantitative analysis was then completed based on the data extraction form. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, results were summarized as best evidence available. Our sensitive literature search produced 6484 studies. Initial screening based on title and abstract resulted in the selection of 40 studies that underwent full text review. From these 19 studies were included for analysis in our systematic review. There were 3 level I studies, 4 level II studies, 3 level III studies, and 9 level IV studies. In total this included 844 patients. The most commonly reported outcomes included subjective patient reported outcomes and nerve conduction studies. The most common treatment modalities, from most to least common, included education and activity modification, splinting, steroid/lidocaine injection, nerve mobilization/gliding, pulsed ultrasound, laser therapy, non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs, and physiotherapy. The most common duration of therapy was 3 months with a median follow-up time of 3 months. There was moderate strength evidence to recommend the use of education/activity modification or splinting in mild or moderate CuTS. There is a paucity of literature and highquality studies regarding the conservative management of CuTS. Regardless, there appears to be a role for non-operative management in CuTS, although further studies are needed to delineate this role further. In the cases of mild or moderate CuTS it is reasonable to trial education/activity modification or splinting as both appear to be equally effective.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».