Immediate Versus Delayed Mobilization After Cubital Tunnel Release Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: It is unknown whether early mobilization after cubital tunnel decompression improves functional outcomes without increasing complication risks. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of early mobilization compared to delayed mobilization of the elbow after ulnar nerve decompression. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing adults who received early mobilization or late mobilization were included. Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PEDro, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization database were systematically searched from inception to January 2023. Results: Of the 2183 studies identified and screened, five studies (two RCT and three observational) totaling 224 patients (232 elbows) were included in this review. Evidence from two RCTs (100 patients) suggests that early mobilization may result in a large reduction in the amount of time needed to return to work (mean difference 40.1 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16-64 days earlier, I 2 = 85%, low-certainty evidence) and little to no difference in grip strength (0 kg, 95% CI = −0.17 to 0.17, I 2 = 0%, low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in adverse events or range of motion (low to very-low certainty evidence). Pooled results from the three observational studies showed similar findings (very low-certainty evidence). There were no studies that evaluated upper extremity related quality of life. Conclusion: Immobilizing patients for periods longer than 3 days appears to delay patient's return to work with no appreciable clinical benefit.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".