The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2007;89:1108-1116.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00594
© 2007 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
The Ulnar Nerve in Elbow Trauma
Robert Shin, MD1 and
David Ring, MD1
1 Massachusetts General Hospital, Yawkey Center, Suite 2100, 55 Fruit Street,
Boston, MA 02114. E-mail address for D. Ring:
dring{at}partners.org
Disclosure: In support of their research for or preparation of this
work, one or more of the authors received, in any one year, outside funding or
grants in excess of $10,000 from the AO Foundation, Small Bone Innovations,
Smith and Nephew, Wright Medical Technology, and Biomet. Neither they nor a
member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a
commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No
commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits
to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or
other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member
of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.
 |
Introduction
|
|---|
The prevalence of
ulnar nerve dysfunction after elbow injury is unknown because authors of
published investigations have inadequately differentiated among acute
injury-related, acute surgery-related, and delayed (subacute or chronic) ulnar
neuropathies and these retrospective case series have not included careful
evaluation of ulnar nerve function.
Ulnar neuropathy is
well documented after distal humeral fracture, but it can also develop
following any complex elbow trauma.
The ulnar nerve should
be identified and protected during the treatment of a bicolumnar fracture of
the distal part of the humerus, but current data are inconclusive regarding
the value of routine anterior transposition of the nerve.
Although most delayed
ulnar neuropathies present at a relatively late stage with weakness, with or
without muscle atrophy, improved motor strength may be observed in some
patients many years after ulnar nerve decompression.
Ulnar nerve
decompression and transposition are becoming an integral part of many
posttraumatic reconstructive elbow procedures, but most recommendations for
management of the ulnar nerve are based on retrospective reviews, anecdotal
reports, and expert opinion.
The ulnar nerve is susceptible to compressive neuropathy at several
anatomical sites at the elbow
joint1-4.
Elbow trauma places the nerve at risk for direct injury, operative injury, and
subsequent compressive neuropathy. Optimal management of the ulnar nerve
during operative treatment of an elbow injury is commonly discussed and
debated, particularly with respect to the operative treatment of fractures of
the distal part of the
humerus5-7.
The role of ulnar nerve dysfunction in posttraumatic stiffness and pain is
also being increasingly
recognized8-10.
This paper reviews the published scientific data and current opinion available
to guide patient care, with particular emphasis on areas where more data are
needed.
 |
Epidemiology
|
|---|
The prevalence of acute and chronic ulnar nerve dysfunction after elbow
trauma has not been documented definitively. Acute injury-related ulnar nerve
palsy is uncommon in association with fractures of the distal part of the
humerus and the olecranon (including fracture-dislocations of the olecranon),
but it has been described as occurring in up to 10% of elbow
dislocations11,12.
This number seems too high, and the 1% prevalence of acute ulnar nerve palsy
associated with elbow dislocation reported by Galbraith and
McCullough13 is
more consistent with our experience. A possible explanation for the difference
in these numbers is the failure to distinguish among acute ulnar nerve palsy,
postoperative ulnar nerve palsy, and delayed-onset ulnar nerve dysfunction,
with the 10% figure reflecting all types of ulnar nerve dysfunction
encountered from the time of injury through the long-term follow-up
period.
Robinson et al. reviewed several series of adult patients with a fracture
of the distal part of the humerus (320 patients in total) and found an overall
rate of ulnar neuropathy of 12.3% (range, 0% to 50.9%), with an average of
5.4% (range, 0% to 15%) of these deficits being
permanent14. The
wide ranges and the failure to distinguish among the different types of ulnar
nerve dysfunction limit the utility and interpretation of these findings.
We cannot accurately describe the prevalence of acute injury-related ulnar
nerve palsy, postoperative ulnar nerve palsy, and delayed-onset ulnar nerve
palsy on the basis of the available published data. Future researchers should
distinguish among these types of ulnar nerve dysfunction and define the
prevalence of the problem according to these specific injury types.
 |
Anatomy
|
|---|
The ulnar nerve is derived from the C8 and T1 nerve roots. It is a terminal
branch of the medial cord of the brachial plexus. In the midportion of the
arm, it passes from the anterior to the posterior part of the arm, piercing
the intermuscular septum approximately 10 cm above the medial
epicondyle15. The
nerve then passes through a fascial tunnel bounded laterally by the internal
brachial ligament and inferiorly by an accessory origin of the medial head of
the triceps from the medial intermuscular septum. The latter structure is
commonly referred to as the arcade of Struthers, although it appears that
Struthers never described
it16-18.
The arcade of Struthers averages 3.75 cm in length, ending approximately 3 to
10 cm above the medial
epicondyle19. The
reported prevalence of an arcade of Struthers is extremely variable, ranging
between 25% (sixteen of
sixty-four)20 and
70% (fourteen of
twenty)21,
indicating that its nature as a structure is disputed and difficult to
characterize. The ulnar nerve passes under the medial epicondyle and enters
the cubital tunnel beneath the fibrous arch bridging the two heads of the
flexor carpi ulnaris (or the Osborne
ligament)1,2,4.
In the forearm, the ulnar nerve passes beneath the aponeurosis between the
ulnar and humeral heads of the flexor carpi ulnaris.
The blood supply to the ulnar nerve at the elbow is derived from three main
pedicles, the superior ulnar collateral artery proximally, the inferior ulnar
collateral artery in the midportion, and the posterior recurrent ulnar artery
distally. These three vessels form an anastomotic extraneural network
intimately associated with the ulnar
nerve22. The
superior ulnar collateral artery arises from the brachial artery about 18 cm
proximal to the medial epicondyle. The inferior ulnar collateral artery arises
from the brachial artery about 6.6 cm proximal to the medial epicondyle. The
posterior recurrent ulnar artery arises from the ulnar artery about 7.3 cm
distal to the medial epicondyle. In the study by Yamaguchi et al., twenty of
twenty-two elbows did not have a direct anastomotic connection between the
superior ulnar collateral artery and the posterior recurrent ulnar artery and
fourteen of the twenty-two elbows did not have a communication between the
superior ulnar collateral artery and the inferior ulnar collateral
artery22. This is
an important finding because division of the inferior ulnar collateral artery
during anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve may devascularize a portion
of the nerve. A study of ulnar nerve transposition in monkeys demonstrated a
significant decrease (p < 0.05) in regional blood flow that took up to
three days to return to
normal23. Some have
claimed that careful dissection can often preserve this blood supply during
transposition24.
Others have emphasized that there is an internal blood supply that is
preserved during
transposition22,25.
The ulnar nerve does not innervate any structures in the upper arm. There
are zero to three articular branches to the elbow, and these may begin
proximal to the medial
epicondyle26. The
first branch to the flexor carpi ulnaris is found an average of 15 mm distal
to the epicondylar
axis27 and usually
arises from the radial aspect of the
nerve26. Typically,
there are two to five branches to the flexor carpi ulnaris and the flexor
digitorum profundus combined, occasionally with only one branch to the flexor
carpi ulnaris27.
Care must be taken to protect the first motor branch, in case it is the only
branch to the flexor carpi ulnaris. Intraneural dissection of the first motor
branch to the flexor carpi ulnaris can be performed safely and is occasionally
required to fully mobilize the ulnar nerve.
The dimensions of the ulnar nerve change with elbow flexion and extension.
The cross-sectional shape changes from round to elliptical with increasing
flexion, as the nerve flattens against the medial
epicondyle28. The
cross-sectional area of the nerve decreases up to
50%29 and the nerve
elongates about 5 mm with full
flexion30,31.
The mean intraneural pressure is approximately 45% greater than the mean
extraneural pressure with full elbow flexion, suggesting that intraneural
pressure is the result of both traction and flattening (external pressure) of
the nerve29.
 |
Pathogenesis of Ulnar Neuropathy after Trauma
|
|---|
The ulnar nerve can be damaged by the initial injury or iatrogenically
during operative treatment, or it may become symptomatic in a delayed fashion
secondary to postoperative swelling, scarring, and thickening in its
fibroosseous tunnel. It is important to evaluate peripheral nerve function
carefully prior to any operation for the treatment of an elbow injury in order
to distinguish injury-related from surgery-related palsies.
Postoperative nerve palsies are often the result of traction on the nerve.
Traction on the nerve should be carefully monitored and minimized. Retractors
and loops around the nerve should be used with care, and assistants should be
kept attentive. Although it can be argued that a wider loop such as a Penrose
drain will apply less force per unit area than a smaller loop, our opinion is
that it is not the pressure from the loop that places the nerve at risk, but
rather the overall traction on the nerve. We believe that one is less likely
to apply excessive traction through a smaller, more flexible loop such as a
vessel loop.
Postoperative palsy can occur even when the nerve is handled gently.
Furthermore, we have observed several postoperative ulnar nerve palsies after
the nerves were transposed in the injury setting but none after transposition
for treatment of idiopathic ulnar neuropathy. Given that some anatomical
studies have suggested that a segment of the ulnar nerve may be devascularized
during transposition, we have speculated that a traumatized nerve may be more
susceptible to injury, by means of devascularization, than a chronically
compressed nerve. More research is needed to better understand the
pathogenesis of, and risk factors for, postoperative ulnar nerve palsy in the
setting of acute elbow trauma.
Delayed compressive neuropathies may be related to (1) implants placed on
the medial column of the distal part of the humerus; (2) osteophytes, and
exuberant fracture
callus32, or
heterotopic ossification (in which the ulnar nerve is occasionally
entrapped)33,34;
(3) constriction of the nerve by an incompletely divided flexor pronator
aponeurosis or arcade of Struthers, or over an incompletely released medial
intermuscular septum or medial triceps fascia (arcade of Struthers) after
transposition; and (4) thickening or scarring of the normal fibroosseous
tunnel in which the ulnar nerve
lies35-40.
Delayed ulnar neuropathies have also been described in association with
varus or valgus malunion of humeral fractures in children. In this setting,
the ulnar nerve dysfunction has been referred to as a tardy ulnar nerve
palsy41,42.
Treatment recommendations may include humeral osteotomy in addition to ulnar
nerve transposition, but the influence of the osteotomy on the ulnar
neuropathy is debatable. Given the relationship between elbow trauma and
subsequent ulnar neuropathy in the absence of varus or valgus deformity, the
role of such deformity in the pathogenesis of ulnar nerve dysfunction can be
questioned.
 |
Examination and Diagnostic Tests
|
|---|
In patients with an ulnar neuropathy, numbness usually involves the small
finger and the ulnar half of the ring finger. Sensory disturbance can be
objectively and quantitatively evaluated with use of tests of threshold
sensibility (Semmes-Weinstein monofilament
testing)43 and
innervation density (two-point discrimination testing). Semmes-Weinstein
monofilament testing assesses the ability of the patient to sense pressure
from filaments that bend at a known pressure. The normal value for this test
is 2.83 MN (marking number), which is equivalent to ten times the log of the
force in milligramsin this case 68 mg. Patients who can detect only
larger monofilaments have decreased sensation to light touch. Two-point
discrimination can be assessed with a finger-blanching technique, in which two
blunt points separated by a known distance are either held in one spot (static
testing)44 or kept
in motion (dynamic
testing)45. The
upper limit of normal has been described as 6 mm for the
former46 and as 4
mm for the
latter47. If
sensation is normal on the dorsal ulnar aspect of the hand and wrist but not
in the small finger, ulnar nerve compression at the wrist should be
suspected.
Atrophy and weakness reflect advanced nerve damage. Atrophy of the first
dorsal interosseous muscle is usually more apparent than atrophy of the other
intrinsic hand muscles innervated by the ulnar nerve, such as those in the
hypothenar eminence and the other interosseous muscles. The strength of the
first dorsal interosseous muscle can be tested by placing the patient's
extended index finger in maximum radial deviation, having him or her resist
forceful ulnar deviation, and comparing the resistance with that of the other
hand. Weakness of the abductor digiti minimi and the flexor digitorum
profundus to the small finger should also be assessed. The relative strength
of the abductor digiti minimi can be tested conveniently with the
confrontational test, in which the small fingers of both hands are held in
abduction with maximal force, the small fingers are brought together, and,
starting at approximately a 90° angle to each other, are pushed against
one another. The test result is negative when both small fingers give way and
collapse toward the ring fingers simultaneously. Unilateral giving-way is a
positive result, suggesting
weakness48.
Static sensory or motor deficits may be absent in the early stages of
compressive ulnar neuropathy. Symptoms can be provoked by sustained elbow
flexion (the so-called elbow flexion
test49), sustained
pressure over the nerve in the cubital
tunnel50, or
tapping over the ulnar nerve at the cubital tunnel (to elicit the Tinel
sign51). Novak et
al. compared patients with electrodiagnostically confirmed idiopathic ulnar
nerve compression with asymptomatic controls and found that a greater duration
of elbow flexion or pressure over the nerve as well as the combination of both
compression and flexion increased the sensitivity of provocative testing with
little decrease in specificity (Table
I)50.
These findings are likely to apply to delayed posttraumatic ulnar neuropathy
as well.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE I Comparison of Sensitivities, Specificities, and Predictive Values of
Provocative Tests for Ulnar
Neuropathy*
|
|
Neurophysiological testing provides objective confirmation of suspected
ulnar neuropathy. Electromyography is used to evaluate motor nerve
dysfunction. This test measures the electrical activity of a motor unit.
Evidence of fibrillations suggests denervation of the motor end plates.
Positive sharp waves appear approximately ten to twenty days after nerve
injury and are also characterized by rest activity and increased insertional
activity. Polyphasic motor unit potentials represent reinnervation and motor
nerve recovery. Transient suppression of electromyographic activity may be
demonstrated by noxious digital nerve stimuli. This period of electrical
silence is known as a cutaneous silent period. Its presence is normal
and indicates intact small fibers (A-delta), which are typically spared in
compression neuropathy. Cutaneous silent periods become elongated with more
severe nerve involvement. Most importantly, cutaneous silent periods confirm
residual nerve continuity, which may not be apparent with use of other
electromyographic
parameters52,53.
Nerve conduction studies are used to evaluate sensory and motor nerve
conduction amplitudes and velocities. Changes in sensory conduction are more
sensitive indicators of neuropathy and correlate more directly with findings
on physical examination. With both sensory and motor nerve conduction studies,
the earliest sign of nerve dysfunction is a decrease in amplitude. This is
closely followed by a decrease in motor velocity. Either absolute velocity
across the elbow of <50 ms or slowing of velocity by >10 m/s compared
with the value in the contralateral, unaffected arm suggests ulnar nerve
compression. Additional features include an above-the-elbow to below-the-elbow
segment being >10 ms slower than the below-the-elbow to wrist segment, a
decrease in compound muscle action potential negative peak amplitude from
below the elbow to above the elbow of >20%, and a substantial change in
compound muscle action potential configuration at the above-the-elbow site
compared with the below-the-elbow
site54. Distal
sensory and motor latencies of >2.4 and >2.6 ms, respectively, are also
considered abnormal.
 |
Classification
|
|---|
McGowan55
classified ulnar nerve dysfunction into three grades. Grade 1 represents a
minimal lesion with no detectable motor weakness of the hand. Grade 2 is
characterized by an intermediate lesion in which a sensory disturbance is
accompanied by interosseous muscle weakness and some wasting. Grade 3 is a
severe lesion with profound weakness of the interossei.
In 1990, Gabel and
Amadio39 reviewed
the results of reoperations done because of failed cubital tunnel releases in
thirty patients and devised a 9-point scoring system to rate ulnar neuropathy
preoperatively and postoperatively. The score is based on the summation of
scores on 0 to 3-point scales for pain, sensory deficits, and motor deficits
(Table II), with 9 points
representing no evidence of neuropathy and 0 points representing the most
severe neuropathy.
In 1989, Dellon proposed a similar grading
system56. The
severity of the lesion is graded as mild, moderate or severe, depending on
sensory and motor findings as well as the results of provocative maneuvers
(Table III). Sensory findings
include the presence of paresthesias, response to vibratory stimuli, and
two-point discrimination. Motor findings include atrophy and the presence of
objective weakness. Provocative tests include the elbow flexion test and the
Tinel sign.
It is also useful to classify ulnar nerve dysfunction according to its time
of onset in relation to the traumatic event. It is important to distinguish
among acute injury-related ulnar neuropathies, postoperative surgery-related
ulnar neuropathies, and delayed compressive ulnar neuropathies. Delayed ulnar
neuropathy can be either
subacute57 (onset
within three months after the injury) or chronic (onset more than three months
after the injury). Subacute ulnar neuropathy usually presents as loss of elbow
motion and increasing pain with or without hand stiffness after an initial
period during which pain was decreasing and motion was recovering well.
Chronic ulnar neuropathywhether posttraumatic or
idiopathicusually presents with advanced findings, with the patient
having adapted to the symptoms. The surgeon should be mindful of the potential
for ulnar nerve dysfunction at all stages of recovery from elbow trauma and
remember to evaluate ulnar nerve function at each office visit.
 |
Natural History
|
|---|
While injury-related nerve palsies usually resolve, recovery from
postoperative ulnar nerve palsies can be prolonged and incomplete. In our
experience, patients with diabetes mellitus have been at particular risk for
delayed or incomplete
recovery58.
In our opinion, subacute and chronic ulnar neuropathies and idiopathic
cubital tunnel syndrome are slowly and inevitably progressive, as has been
increasingly observed to be the case with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome.
Furthermore, we believe that nonoperative treatment can help manage symptoms
in the short term but cannot be relied on to prevent progression of the
disease59. There is
better evidence to support these concepts with regard to idiopathic carpal
tunnel syndrome, but it is reasonable to expect other compressive peripheral
neuropathies to behave in a similar fashion. In a clinical trial comparing
operative treatment and splint immobilization in 176 patients with idiopathic
carpal tunnel syndrome, 41% of those treated with the splint required surgery
within eighteen months after
enrollment60. In
addition, several studies of idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome have
demonstrated either bilateral presentation or eventual development of nerve
dysfunction on the contralateral side, suggesting that it is a bilateral
disease61,62.
Finally, a study of twins showed that genetics alone accounts for at least
half of the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome
developing63.
It is plausible that chronic idiopathic peripheral neuropathies reflect
progressive structural compression that is genetically mediated and
inevitable. It is also plausible that posttraumatic ulnar neuropathy is
structural and progressive. These speculations must be confirmed by scientific
data and may be relatively academic since most cases of posttraumatic ulnar
neuropathy present at a fairly advanced stage with atrophy and weakness.
Nonetheless, we recommend regular follow-up of patients with posttraumatic
ulnar neuropathy if nonoperative treatment is chosen.
 |
Management of the Ulnar Nerve During Operative Treatment of Elbow Injury
|
|---|
Bicolumnar Distal Humeral Fractures
Among elbow fractures, bicolumnar fractures of the distal part of the
humerus are associated with the highest rate of both acute ulnar nerve palsy
and delayed-onset chronic ulnar neuropathy following operative
treatment5-7,64-79
(see Appendix). Surgeons handle the nerve in a variety of ways. All recommend
initial exposure and protection of the nerve. Some advocate placing the nerve
back into its epicondylar groove after internal fixation is
completed7,76.
Others transpose the nerve only when it is contused or if it lies directly on
the medial
plate6,77,78.
Most support routine anterior transposition of the
nerve5,79-84.
The exact prevalence of postoperative ulnar nerve palsy cannot be stated
accurately for the reasons mentioned earlier, but it may be as high as
13%5-7,67,70-79.
We are beginning to analyze our experience, in which we have encountered what
may be seven new iatrogenic postoperative ulnar nerve palsies in thirty-two
patients (a rate of 22%) with a bicolumnar distal humeral fracture in whom a
complete subcutaneous ulnar nerve transposition had been performed. If these
ulnar nerve palsies were a result of the complete anterior transposition
(i.e., caused by handling, retraction, or devascularization of the nerve),
this would be a substantial disadvantage of that procedure, but our data are
provisional and it is unclear if the rate of palsy is lower after protection
of the nerve without transposition. On the other hand, it is not clear that
complex fractures of the distal part of the humerus can be treated without
moving the ulnar nerve out of the cubital tunnel.
A few authors reporting on retrospective case series of patients who had
undergone internal fixation of a bicolumnar fracture of the distal part of the
humerus have commented on the handling of the ulnar
nerve5-7,72,73,77,79,80.
The occurrence of postoperative nerve palsy is inconsistent, and no definitive
treatment recommendations can be made. Kundel et
al.7 reviewed the
cases of seventy-seven patients in whom transposition was performed only when
implants were placed in the groove below the medial epicondyle (in thirteen
cases). They reported a 27% prevalence of injury or surgery-related ulnar
neuropathy with this technique. In a study of fifty-five patients in whom
transposition was performed only when there were preexisting ulnar nerve
symptoms, Gupta and
Khanchandani6
reported that 5% had an acute postoperative ulnar nerve palsy. Wang et
al.5 advocated
routine subcutaneous transposition, reporting no ulnar nerve complications in
twenty patients who had been so treated.
The ulnar nerve is routinely transposed when bicolumnar fractures of the
distal part of the humerus are treated with linked total elbow arthroplasty.
Acute postoperative ulnar nerve dysfunction has been reported in 0% to 26% of
patients64-66,68,69.
Capitellar and/or Trochlear Fractures and Elbow Fracture-Dislocations
Complex articular fractures of the distal part of the humerus that do not
involve the medial column (capitellar/trochlear fractures and lateral column
fractures) and most elbow fracture-dislocations can be treated without the
need to identify or protect the ulnar nerve. Acute postoperative ulnar nerve
palsy is very uncommon with these injuries, but patients are at risk for
delayed-onset ulnar neuropathy. One of us (D.R.) and colleagues described
twenty-one patients with a complex articular fracture of the distal part of
the humerus (complex capitellar and trochlear fractures), two of whom had a
subacute ulnar neuropathy after an initial uneventful
recovery80. Both
patients had resolution of symptoms subsequent to an ulnar nerve release,
performed at six weeks postoperatively in one patient and at eight weeks in
the other.
Fracture of the olecranon has been associated with a prevalence of
postoperative ulnar neuropathy of 6% (two of
thirty-one)85 and
prevalences of delayed-onset ulnar neuropathy of 2% (one of
fifty-two86) to 22%
(four of
eighteen32). We are
in the process of reviewing the results of our treatment of dislocations of
the elbow with associated intra-articular fractures and have noted a rate of
delayed ulnar neuropathy of approximately 11% within two to five years
postoperatively; the rate has been 15% after treatment of so-called terrible
triad injuries (dislocation with fractures of the radial head and coronoid
process).
Because patients with these fracture types are at risk for delayed ulnar
neuropathy, we have started to consider identification, prophylactic in situ
decompression, and protection of the ulnar nerve during operative treatment of
these injuries. More data are needed regarding the relative advantages and
disadvantages of routine in situ release of the ulnar nerve, but we have
encountered few sequelae in the short term. This situation may be analogous to
that of unlinked total elbow arthroplasty, which was associated with a
substantial rate of ulnar
neuropathy87-95
before routine ulnar nerve decompression was added to the operative
protocol.
 |
Management of Ulnar Nerve Dysfunction
|
|---|
Postinjury or Postoperative Nerve Palsy
Nerve palsies identified within the first two weeks after an injury or
operation are most likely related to traumatic or operative injury to the
nerve. Sometimes it appears that a nerve that was intact at the initial
postoperative examination becomes dysfunctional within the next few days, but
in our opinion this is unlikely. It seems more likely that the initial
postoperative examination was incomplete or inaccurate than that the status of
the ulnar nerve changed over a few days. Consequently, if the surgeon is
confident that the nerve is not lacerated or entrapped by an implant or
injury, then a postoperative palsy should be managed with observation;
otherwise the nerve should be explored.
Subacute Ulnar Neuropathy
Subacute ulnar nerve
dysfunction96 can
present as a sudden deterioration of function after an initial period of good
recovery. It was described as secondary ulnar nerve palsy by Broca and Mouchet
in 189957, and its
occurrence was recently reemphasized by Faierman et
al.96. Suggestive
symptoms and signs can be confirmed with electrophysiological testing. The
clinical presentation can be similar to that of complex regional pain
syndrome, with pain out of proportion to what is expected and pain with light
touch or even small movements. This is an uncommon condition, and it improves
after ulnar nerve
transposition96.
Chronic Ulnar Neuropathy
Chronic ulnar nerve dysfunction after trauma is often not recognized until
advanced changes such as static numbness, weakness, and atrophy are present.
Operative treatment is warranted after the lesion is confirmed and documented
with electrodiagnostic testing. The variety of operative techniques described
for the treatment of idiopathic ulnar neuropathy can usually be considered for
posttraumatic ulnar neuropathy as well. No clear superiority of one technique
over another has been demonstrated. In the unusual situation in which chronic
ulnar neuropathy develops even though the nerve had been transposed anteriorly
in the subcutaneous tissues at the time of the operation, one can consider
repeat decompression with or without submuscular placement of the
nerve97.
McKee et al. reviewed the cases of twenty patients (twenty-one elbows) in
whom chronic ulnar neuropathy had been treated with ulnar nerve decompression
as part of an elbow
reconstruction98,99.
At an average of thirty-two months after the operation, the patients
frequently had a return of intrinsic muscle function and had a high rate of
satisfaction. There were seventeen good-to-excellent results, two fair
results, and two poor results. Ten patients had a McGowan grade-3 lesion
preoperatively, and none had one postoperatively. The average Gabel and Amadio
score increased from 3.2 to 6.5 points. There was no worsening of intrinsic
strength. Of seventeen patients with preoperative weakness, twelve recovered
grade-5 power, four recovered grade-4 power, and one still had grade-3 power.
The average satisfaction score was 8.0 of 10 points.
Barrios et al. directly compared the results of neurolysis and
transposition of the ulnar nerve in patients with either idiopathic or
posttraumatic cubital tunnel
syndrome100. The
results were slightly better (as measured with a scoring system and
categorical ratings based on the Nerve Committee of the British Medical
Research
Council101) in the
patients with idiopathic ulnar neuropathy. A greater number of patients with
idiopathic ulnar neuropathy had complete recovery. The duration of symptoms
did not affect the
outcome100.
Ulnar Neuropathy Associated with Elbow Contracture
Chronic ulnar nerve dysfunction is often seen in conjunction with elbow
stiffness, with or without arthrosis. In fact, ulnar nerve dysfunction can be
considered part of the disease process of primary osteoarthritis of the elbow,
with a prevalence as high as 54% (twenty-seven of fifty patients) in one
study102. Antuna
et al. reported ulnar nerve dysfunction in 15% (seven) of forty-six patients
prior to an ulnohumeral arthroplasty for primary elbow arthritis and 28%
(thirteen) of the forty-six postoperatively and recommended routine
transposition of the ulnar nerve in elbows with <100° of preoperative
flexion as well as in patients with preoperative ulnar nerve
symptoms103. While
it is appropriate to consider stiff or arthritic elbows as being at risk for
the development of ulnar nerve dysfunction after an operation that restores
greater flexion to the elbow, postrelease ulnar neuropathy can also occur in
patients with good preoperative flexion; therefore, definitive criteria for
decompressing the ulnar nerve at the time of an elbow contracture release
cannot be made at this time.
Ulnar Neuropathy Associated with an Ununited Fracture of the Distal Part of the Humerus
Decompression and anterior subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve
has become an integral part of the operative treatment of an ununited fracture
of the distal part of the
humerus100,104,105.
Helfet et al. reported preoperative ulnar nerve dysfunction in 30% of
fifty-two
patients104. McKee
et al. reviewed the cases of thirteen patients with distal humeral malunion or
nonunion, nine of whom had ulnar neuropathy before operative treatment of the
malunion or
nonunion99.
External neurolysis and subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve was
performed in all nine patients, and all had a decrease in the ulnar nerve
symptoms. Ulnar nerve transposition addresses preoperative nerve dysfunction,
diminishes the potential for new ulnar neuropathy due to increased motion, and
increases the safety of the procedure in most patients.
Recalcitrant Ulnar Neuropathy
Persistent ulnar nerve dysfunction after traumatic or operative injury or
after treatment of a subacute or chronic ulnar neuropathy is commonplace and
may not respond well to treatment. Entrapment of the ulnar nerve in
substantial scar tissue after trauma and several operations can make repeat
decompression or transposition difficult. It is reasonable to consider whether
the nerve was incompletely released, but objective support for this etiology
in the form of a very focal problem or progressive worsening demonstrated by
electrophysiological testing may be necessary to distinguish treatable from
untreatable nerve dysfunction. In the absence of a clear point of residual
compression, nerve release surgery alone may not decrease symptoms or improve
nerve
function39.
Salvage techniques such as use of silicone sheaths or
vein-wrapping39,106-108
to address scarring around the nerve have been described primarily for the
treatment of pain and paresthesias, but two-point discrimination and
electromyographic findings may also improve. These techniques are challenging
and remain controversial. In theory, they minimize adhesions between the
surrounding tissues and the
nerve107.
Promising early results have been
reported39,106-108
by the advocates of these techniques, but additional research is needed to
fully assess their value. Implantable peripheral nerve stimulators have also
been used for chronic pain believed to be due to recalcitrant ulnar
neuropathy, but these devices should be considered
experimental109-111.
 |
Overview
|
|---|
Although definitive data are not available, current expert opinion supports
identification and protection of the ulnar nerve during the treatment of a
bicolumnar fracture of the distal part of the humerus and other types of
complex elbow injury. The decision to transpose the ulnar nerve may be based
in part on the injury type and be done when implants are applied to the medial
epicondyle and medial side of the trochlea. Authors of future studies should
systematically document nerve status and differentiate among injury-related,
postoperative, subacute, and chronic ulnar nerve dysfunction. Ulnar nerve
decompression is an important aspect of posttraumatic elbow reconstruction and
can improve both elbow and hand function.
 |
Appendix
|
|---|
A table presenting information from previous studies on posttraumatic ulnar
nerve palsy is available with the electronic versions of this article, on our
web site at jbjs.org (go to the article citation and click on
"Supplementary Material") and on our quarterly CD-ROM (call our
subscription department, at 781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM).
 |
References
|
|---|
- Feindel W, Stratford J. Cubital tunnel
compression in tardy ulnar palsy. Can Med Assoc J.1958; 78:351
-3.[Medline]
- Wadsworth TG. The external compression
syndrome of the ulnar nerve at the cubital tunnel. Clin Orthop Relat
Res. 1977;124:189
-204.[Medline]
- Morrey BF, An KN. Functional anatomy of
the ligaments of the elbow. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1985; 201:84
-90.[Medline]
- Osborne GV. The surgical treatment of
tardy ulnar neuritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1957; 39:782
.
- Wang KC, Shih HN, Hsu KY, Shih CH.
Intercondylar fractures of the distal humerus: routine anterior subcutaneous
transposition of the ulnar nerve in a posterior operative approach. J
Trauma. 1994;36:770
-3.[Medline]
- Gupta R, Khanchandani P. Intercondylar
fractures of the distal humerus in adults: a critical analysis of 55 cases.Injury
. 2002;33:511
-5.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Kundel K, Braun W, Wieberneit J, Ruter
A. Intraarticular distal humerus fractures. Factors affecting functional
outcome. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1996; 332:200
-8.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Cohen MS, Hastings H 2nd. Post-traumatic
contracture of the elbow. Operative release using a lateral collateral
ligament sparing approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1998; 80:805
-12.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Morrey BF. The posttraumatic stiff
elbow. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2005; 431:26
-35.[Medline]
- Placzek JD, Boyer MI, Gelberman RH, Sopp
B, Goldfarb CA. Nerve decompression for complex regional pain syndrome type II
following upper extremity surgery. J Hand Surg [Am].2005; 30:69
-74.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Watson Jones R. Primary nerve lesions in
injuries of the elbow and wrist. J Bone Joint Surg.1930; 12:121
-40.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Mehlhoff TL, Noble PC, Bennett JB,
Tullos HS. Simple dislocation of the elbow in the adult. Results after closed
treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1988; 70:244
-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Galbraith KA, McCullough CJ. Acute nerve
injury as a complication of closed fractures or dislocations of the elbow.Injury
. 1979;11:159
-64.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Robinson CM, Hill RM, Jacobs N, Dall G,
Court-Brown CM. Adult distal humeral metaphyseal fractures: epidemiology and
results of treatment. J Orthop Trauma.2003; 17:38
-47.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Wehrli L, Oberlin C. The internal
brachial ligament versus the arcade of Struthers: an anatomical study.Plast Reconstr Surg
.2005; 115:471
-7.[CrossRef][Medline]
- De Jesus R, Dellon AL. Historic origin
of the "Arcade of Struthers". J Hand Surg [Am].2003; 28:528
-31.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Vesley DG, Killian JT. Arcades of
Struthers. J Med Assoc State Ala.1983; 52: 33-4,
36-7.[Medline]
- von Schroeder HP, Scheker LR. Redefining
the "Arcade of Struthers". J Hand Surg [Am].2003; 28:1018
-21.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Siqueira MG, Martins RS. The
controversial arcade of Struthers. Surg Neurol.2005; 64 Suppl 1:S1
:17-21.
- Dellon AL. Musculotendinous variations
about the medial humeral epicondyle. J Hand Surg [Br].1986; 11:175
-81.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Kane E, Kaplan EB, Spinner M.
[Observations of the course of the ulnar nerve in the arm]. Ann
Chir. 1973;27:487
-96. Multiple languages.[Medline]
- Yamaguchi K, Sweet FA, Bindra R,
Gelberman RH. The extraneural and intraneural arterial anatomy of the ulnar
nerve at the elbow. J Shoulder Elbow Surg.1999; 8:17
-21.[Medline]
- Ogata K, Manske PR, Lesker PA. The
effect of surgical dissection on regional blood flow to the ulnar nerve in the
cubital tunnel. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1985; 193:195
-8.[Medline]
- Prevel CD, Matloub HS, Ye Z, Sanger JR,
Yousif NJ. The extrinsic blood supply of the ulnar nerve at the elbow: an
anatomic study. J Hand Surg [Am].1993; 18:433
-8.[Medline]
- Kunzel KH, Fischer C, Anderl H. The
ulnar nerve as vascularized nerve transplant. Part I: Anatomy: arterial
vascular supply. J Reconstr Microsurg.1986; 2:175
-9.[Medline]
- Gonzalez MH, Lotfi P, Bendre A,
Mandelbroyt Y, Lieska N. The ulnar nerve at the elbow and its local branching:
an anatomic study. J Hand Surg [Br].2001; 26:142
-4.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Marur T, Akkin SM, Alp M, Demirci S,
Yalcin L, Ogut T, Akgun I. The muscular branching patterns of the ulnar nerve
to the flexor carpi ulnaris and flexor digitorum profundus muscles.Surg Radiol Anat
. 2005;27:322
-6.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Patel VV, Heidenreich FP Jr, Bindra RR,
Yamaguchi K, Gelberman RH. Morphologic changes in the ulnar nerve at the elbow
with flexion and extension: a magnetic resonance imaging study with
3-dimensional reconstruction. J Shoulder Elbow Surg.1998; 7:368
-74.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Gelberman RH, Yamaguchi K, Hollstien SB,
Winn SS, Heidenreich FP Jr, Bindra RR, Hsieh P, Silva MJ. Changes in
interstitial pressure and cross-sectional area of the cubital tunnel and of
the ulnar nerve with flexion of the elbow. An experimental study in human
cadavera. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1998; 80:492
-501.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Apfelberg DB, Larson SJ. Dynamic anatomy
of the ulnar nerve at the elbow. Plast Reconstr Surg.1973; 51:79
-81.[Medline]
- Schuind FA, Goldschmidt D, Bastin C,
Burny F. A biomechanical study of the ulnar nerve at the elbow. J Hand
Surg [Br]. 1995;20:623
-7.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Ishigaki N, Uchiyama S, Nakagawa H,
Kamimura M, Miyasaka T. Ulnar nerve palsy at the elbow after surgical
treatment for fractures of the olecranon. J Shoulder Elbow
Surg. 2004;13:60
-5.[CrossRef][Medline]
- McAuliffe JA, Wolfson AH. Early excision
of heterotopic ossification about the elbow followed by radiation therapy.J Bone Joint Surg Am
.1997; 79:749
-55.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Viola RW, Hanel DP. Early
"simple" release of posttraumatic elbow contracture associated
with heterotopic ossification. J Hand Surg [Am].1999; 24:370
-80.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Bednar MS, Blair SJ, Light TR.
Complications of the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. Hand
Clin. 1994;10:83
-92.[Medline]
- Rogers MR, Bergfield TG, Aulicino PL.
The failed ulnar nerve transposition. Etiology and treatment. Clin
Orthop Relat Res. 1991;269:193
-200.[Medline]
- Kleinman WB. Revision ulnar neuroplasty.Hand Clin
. 1994;10:461
-77.[Medline]
- Jackson LC, Hotchkiss RN. Cubital tunnel
surgery. Complications and treatment of failures. Hand Clin.1996; 12:449
-56.[Medline]
- Gabel GT, Amadio PC. Reoperation for
failed decompression of the ulnar nerve in the region of the elbow. J
Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:213
-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Broudy AS, Leffert RD, Smith RJ.
Technical problems with ulnar nerve transposition at the elbow: findings and
results of reoperation. J Hand Surg [Am].1978; 3:85
-9.[Medline]
- Gay JR, Love JG. Diagnosis and treatment
of tardy paralysis of the ulnar nerve. Based on a study of 100 cases. J
Bone Joint Surg. 1947;29:1087
-97.[Free Full Text]
- Holmes JC, Hall JE. Tardy ulnar nerve
palsy in children. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1978; 135:128
-31.[Medline]
- Semmes J, Weinstein S, Ghent L, Teuber
HL. Somatosensory changes after penetrating brain wounds in
man. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;1960
.
- Moberg E. Two-point discrimination test.
A valuable part of hand surgical rehabilitation, e.g. in tetraplegia.Scand J Rehabil Med
.1990; 22:127
-34.[Medline]
- Dellon AL, Mackinnon SE, Crosby PM.
Reliability of two-point discrimination measurements. J Hand Surg
[Am]. 1987;12:693
-6.[Medline]
- DeGroot J. Correlative
neuroanatomy. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange;1991
.
- Kets CM, Van Leerdam ME, Van Brakel WH,
Deville W, Bertelsmann FW. Reference values for touch sensibility thresholds
in healthy Nepalese volunteers. Lepr Rev.1996; 67:28
-38.[Medline]
- Buschbacher R. Side-to-side
confrontational strength-testing for weakness of the intrinsic muscles of the
hand. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1997; 79:401
-5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Buehler MJ, Thayer DT. The elbow flexion
test. A clinical test for the cubital tunnel syndrome. Clin Orthop
Relat Res. 1988;233:213
-6.[Medline]
- Novak CB, Lee GW, Mackinnon SE, Lay L.
Provocative testing for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg
[Am]. 1994;19:817
-20.[Medline]
- Hoffmann P, Buck-Gramcko D, Lubahn JD.
The Hoffmann-Tinel sign. 1915. J Hand Surg [Br].1993; 18:800
-5.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Kofler M, Frohlich K, Saltuari L.
Preserved cutaneous silent periods in severe entrapment neuropathies.Muscle Nerve
. 2003;28:711
-4.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Aurora SK, Ahmad BK, Aurora TK. Silent
period abnormalities in carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve.1998; 21:1213
-5.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Practice parameter for electrodiagnostic studies in ulnar
neuropathy at the elbow: summary statement. American Association of
Electrodiagnostic Medicine, American Academy of Neurology, American Academy of
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Muscle Nerve.1999; 22:408
-11.[CrossRef][Medline]
- McGowan AJ. The results of transposition
of the ulnar nerve for traumatic ulnar neuritis. J Bone Joint Surg
Br. 1950;32:293
-301.[Medline]
- Dellon AL. Review of treatment results
for ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. J Hand Surg [Am].1989; 14:688
-700.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Sunderland S. Nerves and nerve
injuries. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone;1978
.
- Kennedy JM, Zochodne DW. Impaired
peripheral nerve regeneration in diabetes mellitus. J Peripher Nerv
Syst. 2005;10:144
-57.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Mowlavi A, Andrews K, Lille S, Verhulst
S, Zook EG, Milner S. The management of cubital tunnel syndrome: a
meta-analysis of clinical studies. Plast Reconstr Surg.2000; 106:327
-34.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Gerritsen AA, de Vet HC, Scholten RJ,
Bertelsmann FW, de Krom MC, Bouter LM. Splinting vs surgery in the treatment
of carpal tunnel syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA.2002; 288:1245
-51.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Padua L, Padua R, Nazzaro M, Tonali P.
Incidence of bilateral symptoms in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg
[Br]. 1998;23:603
-6.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Bagatur AE, Zorer G. The carpal tunnel
syndrome is a bilateral disorder. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2001; 83:655
-8.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Hakim AJ, Cherkas L, El Zayat S,
MacGregor AJ, Spector TD. The genetic contribution to carpal tunnel syndrome
in women: a twin study. Arthritis Rheum.2002; 47:275
-9.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Morrey BF, Bryan RS. Complications of
total elbow arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1982; 170:204
-12.[Medline]
- Kamineni S, Morrey BF. Distal humeral
fractures treated with noncustom total elbow replacement. J Bone Joint
Surg Am. 2004;86:940
-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Brumfield RH Jr., Kuschner SH, Gellman
H, Redix L, Stevenson DV. Total elbow arthroplasty. J
Arthroplasty. 1990;5:359
-63.[Medline]
- Tyllianakis M, Panagopoulos A,
Papadopoulos AX, Kaisidis A, Zouboulis P. Functional evaluation of comminuted
intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus (AO type C). Long term results
in twenty-six patients. Acta Orthop Belg.2004; 70:123
-30.[Medline]
- Cobb TK, Morrey BF. Total elbow
arthroplasty as primary treatment for distal humeral fractures in elderly
patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1997; 79:826
-32.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hildebrand KA, Patterson SD, Regan WD,
MacDermid JC, King GJ. Functional outcome of semiconstrained total elbow
arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2000; 82:1379
-86.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Waddell JP, Hatch J, Richards R.
Supracondylar fractures of the humerusresults of surgical treatment.J Trauma
. 1988;28:1615
-21.[Medline]
- McCarty LP, Ring D, Jupiter JB.
Management of distal humerus fractures. Am J Orthop.2005; 34:430
-8.[Medline]
- Shetty S. Surgical treatment of T and Y
fractures of the distal humerus. Injury.1983; 14:345
-8.[CrossRef]
|